Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal

Roman Shpount <> Mon, 10 November 2014 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 715EB1A1A63 for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:15:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0pOl7SGFVd9E for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:15:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC5351ACEE6 for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:14:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id d1so12277636wiv.7 for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:14:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=t8R1dE0V6g0nR2gRZ2blWruJx3pDgWB4LRmGIayZF2I=; b=PXB2FMVFmSG2/fNrefckVEMifxMyHY0zLA1TQlR+uD/++EiXVgB7HfYBHcsz+LFrg7 Kp1KFzHXTIHeR7a09NFMkOJfB3QmqlsqXPsRfkH5TDUVEYVievkRoPSeQ3NLFz7RRb5G FSDvSG92HCs7HOQQikcAvpG0sJKf7D71nbvgvuftzZ95MZRZAgLqSOHKslammfUX91bB KR+CiM9hXFxZaTZSkaDkmLiW1rFAVZHBlgoPl82u3RVJaCfoTLaTAV6wJw+PGR4BhENs BKm9z09wZRw22g3OlycacjMgFmVJfOMK9UywsVAG/K/oRZ3glkADkCLYgsYWnvB3IWNN hDKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnZqzfZjMPC3jT/dFCSIveCfKx28hC6/frmfXoa0DuP9dhS4CoNwiwpdlApsjedv8gu3z6O
X-Received: by with SMTP id fl15mr34947650wic.38.1415654088706; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:14:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by with ESMTPSA id vm8sm9689278wjc.6.2014. for <> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:14:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k14so9995529wgh.28 for <>; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:14:47 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id m8mr47837851wjq.43.1415654087581; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:14:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 13:14:47 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:14:47 -0500
Message-ID: <>
From: Roman Shpount <>
To: Adam Roach <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7ba9763203e90c050787a73e
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] MTI Video Codec: a novel proposal
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 21:15:14 -0000

Even though I am not 100% happy with this proposal and that it probably
needs a bit of language clean up, I do support this proposal.

Roman Shpount

On Sun, Nov 9, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Adam Roach <> wrote:

>  It appears that we're running headlong into another in-person discussion
> about the relative merits of H.264 and VP8 as MTI candidates again. Matthew
> Kaufman has argued that this conversation is doomed to failure because no
> major player has been willing to change their position. The players he
> cited were Cisco, Google, and Mozilla, who have represented the three main
> positions on this topic pretty effectively. Although we participate as
> individuals in the IETF, I think it's fair to say that the last time we had
> this conversation, the median positions of participants from those
> companies were "H.264 or die", "VP8 or die", and "either one as long as
> it's *only* one", respectively.
> However, even if nothing else has changed, I think one salient point may
> have become quite important: we're all tired of this. Over two years ago,
> in March of 2012 -- before I even had an particular interest in WebRTC
> except as a user -- this had already become such a long-running acrimonious
> debate that I was brought in as a neutral third party to try to mediate.
> I'm weary of this argument; and, with the exception of a few aggressive
> voices who seem to enjoy the battle more than the outcome, I'm hearing a
> similar exhausted timbre in the messages of other participants (and the key
> stakeholders in particular).
> So, I want to float a proposal that represents a compromise, to see if we
> can finally close this issue. First, I want to start out by reiterating a
> well-worn observation that the hallmark of a good compromise is that nobody
> leaves happy, but everyone can force themselves to accept it. And I want to
> be crystal clear: the solution I'm about to float just barely clears the
> bar of what I think I can live with. This proposal is based on an
> observation that the dominating issues in this conversation remain those of
> licensing, not technology or even incumbency. I’ve discussed this
> extensively with representatives of all three of the players I mention
> above, and they are willing to sign on.
> This proposal is based on the definitions of "WebRTC User Agent", "WebRTC
> device", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint" in section 2.2 of
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12.txt. My proposal would be as follows:
>    1. WebRTC User Agents MUST implement both VP8 and H.264.
>     2. WebRTC devices MUST implement both VP8 and H.264. If compelling
>    evidence arises that one of the codecs is available for use on a
>    royalty-free basis, such as all IPR declarations known for the codec being
>    of (IETF) Royalty-Free or (ISO) type 1, the IETF will change this normative
>    statement to indicate that only that codec is required. For absolute,
>    crystal clarity, this provision is only applicable to WebRTC devices, and
>    not to WebRTC User Agents.
>     3. WebRTC-compatible endpoints are free to implement any video codecs
>    they see fit, if any (this follows logically from the definition of
>    "WebRTC-compatible endpoint," and doesn't really need to be stated, but I
>    want this proposal to be as explicit as possible).
> This has the property of ensuring that all devices and user agents can
> work with all devices and user agents. This has the property of giving no
> one exactly what they want. And, unlike any other previous plans, this has
> the property of coming to a decision while maintaining pressure on the only
> parties who can make a change in the IPR landscape to do so.
> /a
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list