Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:59 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C670D1AE2DA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:59:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wXUuadMePY3R for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:59:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-f180.google.com (mail-we0-f180.google.com [74.125.82.180]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59BC1AE058 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:59:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id u56so367362wes.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:59:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=1d+BXgpx3GSEwBR3mhDc02jgCJEtNBobZ7tFccibIoE=; b=mmwqu1Kr9+xxEOj1DELBGXzt43PnfT/BG8i45mD4rVkixYMIfBG4ZVqq5nn/Y7EHx+ VD0ieOkrFUV4KrzEvBXKneaHrfvEWVfuGvxh98dblYLe+qN7pac81Q13UmRg6Jse3y11 cIaUzrmESa4aGb/46EqlSea203W9afqY+p/kffI+fDq5IsCccj30TAbJQumDyr+l4NJY 5VPx+O6ehvaYvw5o7eR1SQsxwTxiOLnH7YSHH0OXkrljrKOsy3hNFBjt5HAf+7+b9LIl sK8RnKW8r9tpPOQwvxkEHlJ3LLqzQNK4dlbVsbTziHhOyYsGV7JdBNudVQZUNIk//O1U 81fg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkYrBEB7H2JVxoqM8GeCa1vwndegnleYLnnbz2mMHEYnWWXi7wdAPVBc3Wei6WnDPTYXhK0
X-Received: by 10.180.12.179 with SMTP id z19mr31725784wib.24.1385071180020; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:59:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.152.137 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:58:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [2620:101:8003:300:481b:90de:7d1a:71eb]
In-Reply-To: <528E8142.1050309@librevideo.org>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org> <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <528E8142.1050309@librevideo.org>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:58:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOTnE0vTPvuv92Pm6wGgJz9sDgrDHVcZM3Tm-JXvAOBZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c3533aacafb504ebb70338
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:59:50 -0000

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar <
basilgohar@librevideo.org>; wrote:

> On 11/21/2013 03:52 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
> > <basilgohar@librevideo.org>; wrote:
> >> Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
> >
> > More than one person has already.
> >
> > And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
> > spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
> > crappy.
> >
>
> (another case of replying to the person and not the list)
>
> It's no more crappy than having G.711 as a fallback audio codec for
> legacy purposes, which we've already done for rtcweb audio.


And there was really significant debate about that. The argument that
ultimately carried the day was that

(a) G.711 was trivial
(b) There were major interop advantages for the PSTN.

Neither of these two considerations applies here.

-Ekr


>  I realize
> that it's not the same thing, but no other alternative codec has been
> presented that satisfies the blocking issues for choosing either VP8 or
> H.264 as MTI, namely, the IPR- or possibly-IPR-related issues.
>
> --
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>