Re: [rtcweb] Finishing up the Video Codec document

[Victor Pascual Avila <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Daniel-Constantin Mierla
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> IMO, mandatory codec revisiting has to be done for all webrtc entities.
> Why not doing it for web browsers when one codec is proved to be royalty
> free? Are the specs going to force any browser flavour to pay many forever?

Agree

> Btw, from the minutes sent on the mailing list, I understood that the
> decision is to be confirmed on the list (which is the norm for IETF
> anyhow). Unless I missed some messages, I haven't seen any discussion
> here following the last IETF meeting, exposing the conclusion of the
> meeting and asking to have a decision on that.

Agree

-Victor

> On 26/11/14 00:33, Adam Roach wrote:
>> I've updated the draft-ietf-rtcweb-video based on the minutes from
>> Hawaii. Now that we have a clear path to success, I'd like to get the
>> document finalized and published as quickly as possible. This means I
>> need your feedback on the remaining open issues (1, 4, and 5, below).
>> If you are CCed on this mail, it's because you took an action item in
>> Hawaii, and I'm waiting to hear back from you.
>>
>> New version: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-video/
>> Diff: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-rtcweb-video-03.txt
>> ____
>>
>> Action item for Harald Alvestrand from the minutes:
>>> Mo Zanaty: An IANA registered header with reference to 3GPP document.
>>> Codec specific mechanism way of doing this.
>>> Harald: Will send some suggestions on doing this.
>>
>> Action item for Bernard Aboba and Stephan Wenger: collect list of
>> H.264 SEI messages we want to call out as MUST and/or SHOULD.
>> ____
>>
>> Open Issue 1: If you don't want sRGB to be the default color space,
>> say something now.
>>
>> Open Issue 2 (closed): Took "screen source video metadata" issue out
>> of the document, as this is an RTP issue, not a codec issue.
>>
>> Open Issue 3 (closed): New text in "stream orientation" section
>> calling out various MUST/SHOULD/MAY levels, based on what I took away
>> from the mic in Hawaii. If you care about this, double-check that
>> these are what you expect them to be.
>>
>> Open Issue 4: In Toronto, it was suggested that we don't need to
>> specify support for "bilinear" and "none" filter styles, since they're
>> already required. I'm happy to remove the statement if someone can
>> point me to where this is otherwise mandated. If no one comes forward
>> with a citation, I'm going to close this open issue as harmless.
>>
>> Open Issue 5: Waiting on feedback from Bernard and Stefan, as detailed
>> above.
>>
>> Open Issue 6 (closed): Please see the text in section 5 of the new
>> document, which tracks the text from the Novel Proposal email pretty
>> closely.
>>
>> /a
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> --
> Daniel-Constantin Mierla
> http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb



-- 
Victor Pascual Ávila