Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Thu, 21 November 2013 19:27 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 8BC9B1AE241 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_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 UdhpwRh1GCAz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3501AE1C4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sjc-vpn3-1087.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6F82622E1FA; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 14:27:01 -0500 (EST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <2B458AB3-A219-4F3C-B393-8F0969C2CC08@apple.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 11:27:37 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D4CA7C71-1CBF-4090-AB26-48E0B9215590@iii.ca>
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com> <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com> <D0698C9F-967F-4797-A9F3-E461B9DAE8EB@apple.com> <528B2ABE.4040701@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W24713EECAF0BE76A85E94B93E60@phx.gbl> <528C79AD.10608@googlemail.com> <BLU169-W19675CF49C4FAF3F889E4793E60@phx.gbl> <528D0355.3090603@googlemail.com> <55E140BF-D025-4556-A4F2-2441EE766F6B@apple.com> <528E4139.3050808@googlemail.com> <2B458AB3-A219-4F3C-B393-8F0969C2CC08@apple.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
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 19:27:16 -0000

Added a 

#11 	• MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.263}


On Nov 21, 2013, at 11:20 AM, David Singer <singer@apple.com>; wrote:

> Chairs
> 
> can we add this as an option to the formal list, so we get formal feedback on its acceptability, please?
> 
> “Like option ??, pick at least two of {VP8, H.264 CBP, H.263}”
> 
> 
> I think this may be the best (maybe only) way to tease out how much risk people perceive.
> 
> Many thanks
> 
> On Nov 21, 2013, at 9:22 , Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>; wrote:
> 
>> Cleary H.263 is preferable from an engineering standpoint (as is, e.g., MPEG-1 Part 2): better performance, more deployments. The central question is, however, if those can actually be implemented without some sort of licensing.
>> 
>> If they can: Aweseome! However, this may not be determinable without a review by people who are knowledgeable in the field of IPR, i.e., "actual lawyers". I understand that H.263 is not yet old enough to automatically be considered "safe" (and neither is MPEG-1 Part 2, although it is closer).
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Maik
>> 
>> Am 20.11.2013 20:42, schrieb David Singer:
>>> I think we should think hard about H.263 instead of H.261 as the third fallback.  Why?
>>> 
>>> http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-H.263/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> H.263 was first published in March 1996, so it's 17 years old.  The restrictions (e.g. on picture size) are no WORSE than H.261.  Yes, more recent amendments deal with this (and a plethora of other issues), so we’d need to settle on which of those are mandatory (the usual profiling discussion).
>>> 
>>> There are 34 records in the patent database against H.261, mostly from 1989 but one as recent as 2005 (though that is a re-file).  That's 2.2 (reciprocity), as was one other I checked.
>>> 
>>> Rather surprisingly, there are only 31 against H.263!  The most recent is 2011, and is also option 2.  Most are 1997-2001.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On this quick glance, H.263 appears no worse than H.261. IANAL (as I am sure you have all noticed).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> H.263 is much more widely supported and mandated.  It has been mandated in the 3GPP specs for years (for lots of services, including videoconf), and is effectively the fallback codec today in the industry, as I understand.  It was ubiquitous in video telephony for years, and I suspect many of those systems still ship it.
>>> 
>>> So, would “MUST implement at least two of (H.264, VP8, H.263)” work?
>>> 
>>> (I am asking the question, not even answering on behalf of my company, yet.  Let’s get the issues on the table.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> David Singer
>>> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb