Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 06:15 UTC
Return-Path: <mzanaty@cisco.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 87A5C1AE03C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:15:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_RHS_DOB=1.514, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 foanbtkkgVpB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1AA11ADEB7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:15:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9103; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1385100918; x=1386310518; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=hGQsSiXeZ7cplaWboOkJih3pIOEMHhl4aj/c+7hy7Yc=; b=dPp0JtwLiEVMSnhkrO5JwmqGarQe1jBzl9aqER6k4LiSyx7omSgwVZw5 ffY6ixQIJSfjA2whJ0V469kUNTfKZvsHV5IIYVRQ/Qlb7IXkwMvvZtbv/ hokO3fuEtFzwYhr25hE2dvMK+4h/dVC96ULLwlFgtAx8ELhBvh6nyQKsk w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhgFAKz1jlKtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgkNEOFO7W06BIRZ0giUBAQEEAQEBawsMBAIBCA4DBAEBAScHIQYLFAMBBQgCBAENBYdvAw8NuFANiCwTBIxyggsEBgEGhCwDliiBa4xYhTiDKIIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,750,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217";a="1425251"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2013 06:15:17 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com [173.37.183.88]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAM6FHKj024482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:15:17 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([169.254.4.50]) by xhc-rcd-x14.cisco.com ([173.37.183.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:15:17 -0600
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
To: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>, "'lgeyser@gmail.com'" <lgeyser@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: AQHO50o2WLjqtBKzQUWWibpBBMXuCQ==
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:15:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CEB4569A.1E8BE%mzanaty@cisco.com>
References: <CAGgHUiSnSxdUjjQeAroZ0yZ+kQKyV0WVhERuZCynrtPvOTTwBg@mail.gmail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E3@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E3@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.82.237.72]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CEB4569A1E8BEmzanatyciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:15:27 -0000
Bluray is actually a good analogy. It mandates both H.264 and VC1. VC1 is the MPEG standard for Microsoft’s proprietary Windows Media Video (WMV). Just like VCB is the MPEG standard-in-progress for Google’s proprietary VP8. VC1 was intended to be RF, but MPEG LA formed a pool of licensors with claims on VC1, and Microsoft didn’t pay them off adequately to dissolve the pool. Fast forward to today: s/bluray/webrtc/ s/Microsoft/Google/ s/WMV/VP8/ s/VC1/VCB/ s/and H264/xor H264/ (xor may be impeding consensus) On 11/21/13, 4:31 PM, Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com<mailto:sslivinski@lifesize.com>> wrote: While I will readily admit this isn't the best analogy I think taking this to extremes and suggesting that someone working in their garage is at risk of being sued for IP infringement and then using that as justification for just requiring H.261 is a bit of a stretch. From: Leon Geyser [mailto:lgeyser@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 03:21 PM To: Stefan Slivinski Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process 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<mailto: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<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>] Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 02:52 PM To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org<mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>> Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org<mailto: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<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jeremy Laurenson (jlaurens)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed Video… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Philipp Hancke
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Peter Dunkley
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Daniel-Constantin Mierla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Enrico Marocco
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Markus.Isomaki
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Leon Geyser
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Jack Moffitt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ron
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process John Leslie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Basil Mohamed Gohar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Steve Donovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Silvia Pfeiffer
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Ashish V. Thapliyal
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process tim panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process bryandonnovan
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Matt Fredrickson
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Paul Giralt
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process David Singer
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Adam Roach
- [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video codec … Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stefan Slivinski
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process cowwoc
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Maik Merten
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Emil Ivov
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Marc Abrams
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] IETF will fail to implement Video co… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Voting method choice (Re: Proposed V… Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process Cullen Jennings (fluffy)