Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:21 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.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 71DB71AE2DA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:21:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 D7Z8V1mVyPDC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:21:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C43D1AE35B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id eo20so284522lab.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:21:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=pvVzeLYBy6WPlB5Gb0Vgbo3E/GMFAJNrciQLtqt2x6o=; b=JMF2hG/gEpo3w0v3xw4YHWzNsSrgaX7qNaBnxlHUrf4WpOqxKip4W8v4SIFDPlj/P3 gzTgl1cuSLr3gz6n13z+MwBTMDMjRt/0XQewrJxPsSgrXMwBEHVGT3x1RuCG64K4eMrs fOGXl9GjDaMHh5h5pqBSQAL10I/j0srukK2X91LImzISl5aSlUeicA2NWS0EsvZX42u+ uP3vCtPMBXmCNZ2N6mWSV2U2fZji8hWzKgEDJyJ0A/BgL8FojQnwkitT33YOTNkMABpD J/AAcAe6BsSn01Pr4KACcE+wlhgA8XTpN9Uz38d6JWJgtIRaXUMLFi1RT2rm0VpN5PcC kYxg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.10.99 with SMTP id h3mr6523932lab.13.1385068883368; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:21:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:21:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E2@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
References: <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E2@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 23:21:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiSnSxdUjjQeAroZ0yZ+kQKyV0WVhERuZCynrtPvOTTwBg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1132f26ac85ef004ebb67a34
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 21:21:34 -0000

That is a completely different situation. We are talking about the open
web. Not some propriety disc format controlled by big companies.
They can deal with IPR easily. Average people who want to work out of their
garage do want other options even if it isn't the best.
Besides this has been pointed out millions of times: Nothing stops anyone
to implement VP8 or H.264 if H.261 is made MTI.


On 21 November 2013 23:04, Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>; wrote:

> I think arguing in favor of a legacy codec is completely counter
> productive to the proliferation of webrtc.  This working group is
> attempting to avoid dealing with the obvious IPR issues with vp8 and h.264
> that any and every webrtc vendor is going to have to deal with.  We are
> basically saying 'we don't know how to deal with this problem so you're on
> your own' which is completely the wrong message to send as an organization.
>
> Can you imagine if the bluray groups said we don't want to deal with h.264
> IPR issues so we'll just mandate h.261?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 02:52 PM
> To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>;
> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
>
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>