Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

"Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <> Fri, 22 November 2013 06:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A5C1AE03C for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:15:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.511
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id foanbtkkgVpB for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:15:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1AA11ADEB7 for <>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:15:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,750,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217";a="1425251"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 22 Nov 2013 06:15:17 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (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 ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 00:15:17 -0600
From: "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <>
To: Stefan Slivinski <>, "''" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: AQHO50o2WLjqtBKzQUWWibpBBMXuCQ==
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 06:15:16 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CEB4569A1E8BEmzanatyciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "''" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: 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/and H264/xor H264/
(xor may be impeding consensus)

On 11/21/13, 4:31 PM, Stefan Slivinski <<>> 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 []
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 03:21 PM
To: Stefan Slivinski
Cc:<> <<>>
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 <<>> 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 [<>]
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 02:52 PM
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <<>>
Cc:<> <<>>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
<<>> 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
rtcweb mailing list<>
rtcweb mailing list<>