Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

Thomas Reisinger <treising75@gmail.com> Mon, 18 November 2013 06:52 UTC

Return-Path: <treising75@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1886B11E857E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:52:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.203
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.203 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7LgjBAYHZI64 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:52:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF4111E855A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:52:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id ey16so3360580wid.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:52:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=/Y4iAW3eq3Feb//2GKfK/W2NKu+xOzIIbQIOx8KaJdI=; b=qIZ3r3q+/upToHK+9dwO6TAA3WEgHJFe4x5IX/kBn8mTPY2XXpcA4MmiF+GgDMhVXQ vute1tO98PJORRcpnOaovselAC7qvmYm0dqCP7Mouv1C9tDhX+r+362WfhgwTdEumpVq nF4ao++A6+MLZoIXrdSV5rNhMvdP63ubkXqsix4HfLx4qJqt2Yih9qzjJchwLJcB/MoC d/COWL/3U9URaNCeI2ARKYGSKLZWUNknoiShbQfgZJWBZMWpIsLRr0UcnmWY2k6F5Cm7 ALPH8mn3dZXlmeZ1CPTantoB+ZL8kd2nV9JvTmiKFPisORU0Gbrtq+UBiPQZgTPuTSOR +Oow==
X-Received: by 10.180.79.230 with SMTP id m6mr15736448wix.19.1384757519753; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:51:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.202] (77.119.226.28.static.drei.at. [77.119.226.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id gm2sm21059263wib.4.2013.11.17.22.51.58 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:51:59 -0800 (PST)
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com> <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com> <6A06EACB-69E2-4CE0-BDF2-1FDFD71159D3@gmail.com> <52892DD8.9050105@librevideo.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <52892DD8.9050105@librevideo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <7DB56E1B-C97D-4D39-AA07-C4857CE3470D@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11B554a)
From: Thomas Reisinger <treising75@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 07:51:53 +0100
To: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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 06:52:02 -0000

Team,

I had the same concerns about the royalty fee, but after some research I think there aren't any more. For h.264 this still applies. H.261 is not acceptable anymore in a HD world as it is today. Maybe somebody else cloud put some light on the royalty fees for h.263. I will continue my research.

Cheers,

Thomas Reisinger

> On 17.11.2013, at 21:58, Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>; wrote:
> 
> Thomas,
> 
> The reason H.261 is even being considered is because it is an old-enough
> specification that any patents on it should have now expired.  Patents,
> and their liability on existing video formats, are amongst the biggest
> factors affecting which formats can be adopted into the rtcweb standard.
> 
> H.263 most likely (I haven't checked) still has patents associated with
> it that are active and, therefore, present an issue unless the
> respective owners of said patents have publicly declared them royalty-free.
> 
>> On 11/17/2013 03:13 PM, Thomas Reisinger wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Instead of h.261, I would recommend h.263 as a common base.
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Thomas 
>> Sent from mobile device
>> 
>>> On 17 Nov 2013, at 20:54, Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>; wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> just wondering if something like
>>> 
>>> "9. 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."
>>> 
>>> has already popped up. My reasoning is that implementations supporting both high performance codecs will always negotiate to use on of those - H.261 should never be relevant there.
>>> 
>>> It appears that all implementors are willing to implement either H.264 or VP8 (but not necessarily both). This obviously means that negotiation failure regarding a high-performance codec is a possiblity. In this case H.261 is actually useful so that basic video calls can still be established (for instance, I guess deaf people may always appreciate a video connection, as long as sign language can be transmitted).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Maik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 14.11.2013 12:37, schrieb Jeremy Fuller:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Gaining IETF consensus on making it mandatory to support only H.264 or
>>>> only VP8 has clearly failed. I would welcome anyone to share their
>>>> thoughts on why they believe this situation will change anytime in the
>>>> next few years.  Therefore, can I suggest that we remove items 1 and 2
>>>> from the list. Hopefully this will speed up the process by focusing
>>>> efforts towards gaining agreement on one of the remaining options.
>>>> 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. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at
>>>>   least one of H.264 and VP8
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Jeremy Fuller
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
>