Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

["cb.list6" <[e-mail]>]

   1.

   All entities MUST support H.264
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: There are entities that are unable to comply with the license terms
      around H.264
      2.

   All entities MUST support VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: There are entities that are unable to accept the legal risk of
      shipping VP8
      3.

   All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: There are entities that are unable to comply with the license terms
      around H.264 and there are entities that are unable to accept the legal
      risk of shipping VP8
      4.

   Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST support at
   least one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: There are entities that are unable to comply with the license
      terms around H.264 and there are entities that are unable to accept the
      legal risk of shipping VP8. Additionally I am not comfortable trying to
      define "browsers"
      5.

   All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Barely acceptable
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: There appear to be no entities that are prevented from shipping one
      of these at this time based on the responses I have seen, however we may
      find at a future time that this is not true. It also will be
meaningless at
      a future time when a new codec comes along that is in all ways
superior. I
      also believe that it will be reasonable to have "audio-only WebRTC
      devices", and those obviously won't want to ship either codec.
      6.

   All entities MUST support H.261
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: Old inefficient codec. No reason to be forced to carry the cost of
      having this code.
      7.

   There is no MTI video codec
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: YES
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: All of my other objections are remedied by this option.
Additionally,
      this entire straw poll is flawed in that the technical community is
      answering on behalf of their respective legal departments, who are not
      present for the discussion.
      8.

   All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at least
   one of H.264 and VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: Old inefficient codec. No reason to be forced to carry the cost
      of having this code
      9.

   All entities MUST support Theora
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: Old inefficient codec. No reason to be forced to carry the cost
      of having this code. Also unclear IPR issues around this codec.
      10.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: H.261 is an Old inefficient codec. No reason to be forced to
      carry the cost of having this code.
      11.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: H.263 is an older, less efficient codec but still has IPR
issues that
      some entities will not be able to meet. There are few entities that can
      meet this by shipping VP8 and H.264.
      12.

   All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and MUST
   support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: At this time I am not convinced that there is a way for
all entities
      to comply with the decoding requirement.
      13.

   All entities MUST support H.263
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: Older less-efficient codec, IPR issues.
      14.

   All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: Code cost and IPR risk of carrying Theora, impossibility
of complying
      by shipping VP8 and H.264 for almost all entities.
      15.

   All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: Code cost and IPR risk of carrying Theora. Also my understanding of
      Theora is that there is no separate smaller decoder-only codebase.
      16.

   All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
   1.

      Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: NO
      2.

      Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
      them: Codec does not provide sufficient quality at reasonable
bandwidth for
      any use case.




On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Gaelle Martin-Cocher <
[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
>
>
> Please find below my answer to the straw poll on video codec alternatives
> as requested by the Chairs
>
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg10449.html
>
>
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support H.264
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Yes
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support VP8
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          Brings a higher cost or does not allow to interoperate with
> existing solutions/platforms.
>
> -          VP8 is not yet a standard and would benefit of going through
> the full ISO process.
>
> -          VP8 has a declaration of un-licensable IPR,
> https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          One MTI is enough if the codec provides “good enough”
> performances.
>
> -          VP8 Brings a higher cost or does not allow to interoperate
> with existing solutions/platforms.
>
> -          VP8 is not yet a standard and would benefit of going through
> the full ISO process.
>
> -          VP8 has a declaration of un-licensable IPR,
> https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
>
> 1.    Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
> support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          There is no reason to make a distinction between browser and
> non-browser.
>
> -          One MTI is enough if the codec provides “good enough”
> performances.
>
> -          VP8 Brings a higher cost or does not allow to interoperate
> with existing solutions/platforms.
>
> -          VP8 is not yet a standard and would benefit of going through
> the full ISO process.
>
> -          VP8 has a declaration of un-licensable IPR,
> https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          Does not insure interoperability
>
> -          This is somewhat equivalent to no MTI while slowing down the
> widespread adoption of a more powerful codec by RTCWeb.
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support H.261
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          In terms of “old codecs” H263 would be a better choice.
>
> -          It took years to remove H261 from specifications and
> platforms, RTCWeb should not mandate it back.
>
> 1.    There is no MTI video codec
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Yes
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at
> least one of H.264 and VP8
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          In terms of “old codecs” H263 would be a better choice than
> H261.
>
> -          It took years to remove normative support of H261 from
> specifications and platforms, RTCWeb should not mandate it back.
>
> -          VP8 Brings a higher cost or does not allow to interoperate
> with existing solutions/platforms.
>
> -          VP8 is not yet a standard and would benefit of going through
> the full ISO process.
>
> -          VP8 has a declaration of un-licensable IPR,
> https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support Theora
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          Not widely supported in hardware
>
> -          Licensing status is not clear enough
>
> 1.    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          In terms of “old codecs” H263 would be a better choice than
> H261.
>
> -          It took years to remove H261 from specifications and
> platforms, RTCWeb should not mandate it back.
>
> -          VP8 Brings a higher cost or does not allow to interoperate
> with existing solutions/platforms.
>
> -          VP8 is not yet a standard and would benefit of going through
> the full ISO process.
>
> -          VP8 has a declaration of un-licensable IPR,
> https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
>
> 1.    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Acceptable
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and
> MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          VP8 Brings a higher cost or does not allow to interoperate
> with existing solutions/platforms.
>
> -          VP8 is not yet a standard and would benefit of going through
> the full ISO process.
>
> -          VP8 has a declaration of un-licensable IPR,
> https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/  .
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support H.263
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:Yes
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> 1.    All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          Theora is not widely supported in hardware
>
> -          Theora’s licensing status is not clear enough
>
> -          VP8 Brings a higher cost or does not allow to interoperate
> with existing solutions/platforms.
>
> -          VP8 is not yet a standard and would benefit of going through
> the full ISO process.
>
> -          VP8 has a declaration of un-licensable IPR,
> https://ietf.org/ipr/2035/
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:No
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
> -          Not widely supported in hardware
>
> -          Licensing status is not clear enough
>
> 1.    All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
>
> a.    Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]: Acceptable
>
> b.    Do you have any objections to this option, if so please summarize
> them:
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gaëlle
>
>
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public
> information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended
> recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
> please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from
> your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this
> transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>