IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 13 September 2013 18:07 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8A721E811F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:07:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1xlkG367i341 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shaman.nostrum.com (nostrum-pt.tunnel.tserv2.fmt.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f03:267::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629DE21E811C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Sep 2013 11:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from orochi-2.roach.at (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by shaman.nostrum.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id r8DI76wc056251 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:07:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
Message-ID: <52335445.90907@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 13:07:01 -0500
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
References: <CA+9kkMAvdtq_gufKmDNCNCL+kKcxyi0MGUoVHetd9_DzbEdEnA@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-W111E8BA8C5A1AF65A7031F4933B0@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W111E8BA8C5A1AF65A7031F4933B0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030706050809060502040705"
Received-SPF: pass (shaman.nostrum.com: 99.152.145.110 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec Selection Plan
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 18:07:15 -0000

On 9/13/13 12:11, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> With Google having announced plans to implement VP9 (potentially with 
> SVC), and with the recent ratification of H.265, the industry has 
> moved on...

At which point we need to ask whether we're trying to pick "the best 
possible codec" or "a suitable codec." If the former, then your point is 
relevant. But I don't think there's consensus (rough or otherwise) 
around "best possible codec" being the goal.

/a

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email