Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

"DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com> Mon, 18 November 2013 19:44 UTC

Return-Path: <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.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 DC78D1AE1B7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5] 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 HIc6tnUsXBN9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com (ihemail2.lucent.com [135.245.0.35]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F281AE1B0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 11:44:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (h135-239-2-42.lucent.com [135.239.2.42]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.13.8/IER-o) with ESMTP id rAIJi61x003936 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 13:44:08 -0600 (CST)
Received: from FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (fr711wxchhub02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com [135.239.2.112]) by fr712usmtp2.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com (GMO) with ESMTP id rAIJi5In011104 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:44:05 +0100
Received: from FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.7.203]) by FR711WXCHHUB02.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.239.2.112]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 20:44:05 +0100
From: "DRAGE, Keith (Keith)" <keith.drage@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
Thread-Index: AQHO4K5RagQcMG904k2Egdlu3UC4t5oq5eoAgABC+wCAADaGkA==
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:44:04 +0000
Message-ID: <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B0E6F65@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <5283DFDC.4010906@ericsson.com> <528A0BD8.1070409@ericsson.com> <528A4408.50105@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <528A4408.50105@bbs.darktech.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.239.27.39]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.57 on 135.245.2.35
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:44:22 -0000

Maybe you can explain how the WG is able to commit any of this.

Neither IETF or the WG are legal entities!

Individuals may express opinions on various options, but you will get nothing beyond this in my understanding.

Regards

Keith 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org 
> [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of cowwoc
> Sent: 18 November 2013 16:45
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
> 
> 
> Looks good! I'd like to get a clarification which affects 
> multiple options, but #10 most of all.
> 
> Does the WG commit to providing reference implementations 
> that supports VP8, H.264, H.261 with a commercially-friendly 
> license? I am talking strictly about the software license, 
> not the codec IPR. Meaning, libx264 requires a GPL license 
> and ffmpeg requires either a LGPL or GPL license. 
> I would argue that libx264 is a non-starter for commercial 
> use on any platform (due to GPL) and ffmpeg is not usable 
> under iOS (since LGPL + static linking is equivalent to GPL). 
> It is my understanding that the current WebRTC reference 
> implementation is published under the BSD license. I am 
> asking for the final reference implementation (supporting 
> these codecs) to be published under the same license.
> 
> I'm not saying that anyone has to ship a reference 
> implementation supporting all 3 codecs, but rather that the 
> WG should publish a reference implementation demonstrating 
> how it can be done and proving interoperability actually 
> works as expected.
> 
> Thanks,
> Gili
> 
> On 18/11/2013 7:45 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> > WG,
> >
> > The current list of proposed alternative are the following one:
> >
> >   The following alternatives has been proposed:
> >
> >    1. All entities MUST support H.264
> >    2. All entities MUST support VP8
> >    3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
> >    4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
> >       support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> >    5. All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> >    6. All entities MUST support H.261
> >    7. There is no MTI video codec
> >    8. 5+6, i.e. All entities MUST support H.261 and all 
> entities MUST
> >       support at least one of H.264 and VP8
> >    9. All entities MUST support Theora.
> >   10. All entities SHOULD support both H.264 and VP8. All 
> entities MUST
> >       at least implement one of those. Entities that do not 
> support both
> >       H.264 and VP8 MUST implement H.261.
> >
> > The deadline to propose additional alternatives are: 27th 
> of November 
> > 2013
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Magnus
> >
> > On 2013-11-13 21:23, Gonzalo Camarillo wrote:
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> I hope everybody had a safe trip back home after Vancouver.
> >>
> >> As you all know, we need to make progress regarding the 
> selection of 
> >> the MTI video codec. The following are some of the alternatives we 
> >> have on the table:
> >>
> >>   1. All entities MUST support H.264
> >>   2. All entities MUST support VP8
> >>   3. All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
> >>   4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8
> >>   5. All entities MUST support either H.264 or VP8
> >>   6. All entities MUST support H.261
> >>   7. There is no MTI video codec
> >>
> >> If you want the group to consider additional alternatives 
> to the ones 
> >> above, please let the group know within the following *two 
> weeks*. At 
> >> that point, the chairs will be listing all the received 
> alternatives 
> >> and proposing a process to select one among them.
> >>
> >> Please, send your proposals in an email to the list. You 
> do not need 
> >> to write a draft; just send the text you would like to see in the 
> >> final document regarding video codecs.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Gonzalo
> >> Responsible AD for this WG
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
>