Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sslivinski@lifesize.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 729FE1AE351 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:15:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.18
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.18 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MISSING_HEADERS=1.021, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 2gE23BhhBjc4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:14:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com (na3sys009aog111.obsmtp.com [74.125.149.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 868E61AE1ED for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:14:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail1.lifesize.com ([207.114.244.10]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys009aob111.postini.com ([74.125.148.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUo53zG28RwD+/esONDQmRdNA3x9LDFn/@postini.com; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:14:53 PST
Received: from ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109]) by ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com ([fe80::edad:d9e3:99d1:8109%14]) with mapi; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:04:41 -0600
From: Stefan Slivinski <sslivinski@lifesize.com>
CC: "'rtcweb@ietf.org'" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 15:04:40 -0600
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
Thread-Index: Ac7m+6NPI5UjoGpaQZWrJ062akRmWgAAagmZ
Message-ID: <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA8AD7E2@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 21:15:01 -0000

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