Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

["Mandyam, Giridhar" <[e-mail]>]

My responses.  Thanks,
-Giri Mandyam

1. All entities MUST support H.264
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: YES
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

2. All entities MUST support VP8
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
                Does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony.  VP8 standardization is incomplete.

3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
                Does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony. VP8 standardization is incomplete.

4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
                Does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony. VP8 standardization is incomplete.

5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
This option potentially allows negotiation failure.

6. All entities MUST support H.261
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
               Section 7 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/ provides performance data for H.264.  I do not believe that H.261 would provide equivalent or superior performance under identical testing conditions, and no data has been provided to the IETF or on the mailing lists proving otherwise.  This option would allow a presumably inferior codec (H.261) to be the fallback option. Moreover, this does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony.

7. There is no MTI video codec
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Acceptable
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

8. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Section 7 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/ provides performance data for H.264.  I do not believe that H.261 would provide equivalent or superior performance under identical testing conditions, and no data has been provided to the IETF or on the mailing lists proving otherwise.  This option would allow a presumably inferior codec (H.261) to be the fallback option. Moreover, H.261 does not allow for interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony.

9. All entities MUST support Theora
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
               Section 7 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/ provides performance data for H.264.  I do not believe that Ogg would provide equivalent or superior performance under identical testing conditions, and no data has been provided to the IETF or on the mailing lists proving otherwise.  This option would allow a presumably inferior codec (Ogg) to be the fallback option. Moreover, this does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony.  In addition, Ogg has not been formally standardized by any recognized standards-defining organization.

10. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
               Section 7 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/ provides performance data for H.264.  I do not believe that H.261 would provide equivalent or superior performance under identical testing conditions, and no data has been provided to the IETF or on the mailing lists proving otherwise.  This option would allow a presumably inferior codec (H.261) to be the fallback option. Moreover, H.261 does not allow for interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony.

11. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
                VP8 standardization is incomplete.

12. All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
                Does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony.  VP8 standardization is incomplete.

13. All entities MUST support H.263
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: YES
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:.

14. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:.
                Does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony.

15. All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
Section 7 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/ provides performance data for H.264.  I do not believe that Ogg would provide equivalent or superior performance under identical testing conditions, and no data has been provided to the IETF or on the mailing lists proving otherwise.  This option would allow a presumably inferior codec (Ogg) to be the fallback option. Moreover, this does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony.  In addition, Ogg has not been formally standardized by any recognized standards-defining organization.

16. All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:
               Section 7 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/ provides performance data for H.264.  I do not believe that M-JPEG would provide equivalent or superior performance under identical testing conditions, and no data has been provided to the IETF or on the mailing lists proving otherwise.  This option would allow a presumably inferior codec (M-JPEG) to be the fallback option. Moreover, this does not allow interop with legacy systems and standards such as 3GPP IMS Video Telephony.


From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ted Hardie
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 9:25 AM
To: [e-mail]; Gonzalo Camarillo; Richard Barnes; Magnus Westerlund; Cullen Jennings
Subject: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives


Dear WG,


This is the email announcing the straw poll across the video codec alternatives proposed to the WG. If you haven't read the "Next Steps in Video Codec Selection Process" (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10448.html )then please do that before you continue to read.


The straw poll's purpose is to make it clear to the WG which of the alternatives that are favored or disfavored and what objections you have, if any, against a particular alternative. The WG chairs will use the information from this straw poll to identify an alternative to put as a single consensus question to the group. Thus, everyone that has an opinion on at least one alternative should answer this poll. Provide your poll input by replying to this email to the WG mailing list. The poll will run until the end of the 12th of January 2014.


As can be seen below, the poll lists the alternative that have proposed to the WG. For each alternative two questions are listed.


The first question is "Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:". These three levels allow you to indicate that you: Yes= I would be fine with the WG choosing this option. No = I really don't favor this, and it should not be picked. Acceptable = I can live with this option but I prefer something else to be picked.


The second question is "Do you have any objections to this option, if so please explain it:" If you have any objection at a minimum indicate it with a "Yes".   Please also add a short (1-sentence) summary of each of the objections you believe applies.  (If you wish to provide a longer explanation, please do so in a separate thread).  If you have no objection, leave that question blank.


Please provide input on as many of the alternatives as you like and feel comfortable to do. The more inputs, the more well informed decision the WG chairs can take when identifying the option to be brought forward for consensus. Any alternative that you chose to leave blank, will simply be considered as one without any input from you.


WG participants, please do not comment on anyone's input in this thread! If you want to comment, then create a separate thread and change the subject line to something else. Otherwise you are making life for the chairs very difficult to track the results of this straw poll.


If discussion causes you to update your position, please feel free to send an update via email on the straw poll thread prior to the closing date.


1.    All entities MUST support H.264

a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

2.    All entities MUST support VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

3.    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

4.    Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

5.    All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

6.    All entities MUST support H.261

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

7.    There is no MTI video codec

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

8.    All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

9.    All entities MUST support Theora

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

10.  All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

11.  All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

12.  All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

13.  All entities MUST support H.263

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

14.  All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

15.  All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:

16.  All entities MUST support Motion JPEG

.      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

a.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize them:


H.264 is a reference to the proposal in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-burman-rtcweb-h264-proposal/>


VP8 is a reference to the proposal in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-vp8/>


Theora is a reference to Xiph.org Theora Specification from March 16, 2011 (http://www.xiph.org/theora/doc/Theora_I_spec.pdf)


H.263 is a reference to profile 0 level 70 defined in annex X of ITU-T rec H.263 (http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.263/)


H.261 is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4587


Motion JPEG is a reference to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2435


Thanks,


The Chairs