Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 16 October 2014 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 602411A8AEB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 s3uynWsU46CQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com (mail-wi0-f176.google.com [209.85.212.176]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48ED91A8AD8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id hi2so662544wib.15 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=OvL2v1OdGrV86Z4RN9+0tJ79/c54Qu1yEj/XGFYw0H0=; b=d9FsOpjFEX0mTEB5CHywohAcmOwFBnm7LyTsacUbb42RKqSqeyXR2L1iROgZCZmexx ErqnvcJRo8eoIQEjO0PwDCPBKMnYM3Am55oKrLfn6vN+mvnBB6lz6CHQkytpixIhuXye 9UCmvQEsHj1cFYhQtIsg8vFVL4BW+4ka9GCCo3R8SlfIbBGKnICFcvSzz4vADxMbC1eR pHn/evqHg15QeT2rv9X1mksEyahLC8JhArI05y++JpXtqxYc+PQ7Aq1kyL6FBrrsIt5B LdEcKuU9V/0bx7d8paF6xg2JyqQvEysTq+1LKq5aAz6JLEHbaKNmX1AJYIlsu75AmHJc SZSQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkIjCdjvKzNbOEj6gOaRldjB2XXJytIREkMHbw4BeGvj8N8AI0JOQKOMrnHJrErot3jTvgZ
X-Received: by 10.194.122.104 with SMTP id lr8mr5871487wjb.64.1413500049900; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f52.google.com (mail-wg0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y5sm3552265wix.10.2014.10.16.15.54.08 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id a1so4788742wgh.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.186.175 with SMTP id fl15mr9629716wic.38.1413500048379; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.176.65 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:54:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E5E2BF9@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <CAGTXFp-HVJDwd86207PNM2QVYO4Z_K4WF-KarnRs1fb7nvy4zA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDfES8gpi0-PTXpCnQHjFYUSF2r44TNzH5B4UfDGo8PtA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp8O-7ACksk3v3f=KjCkcDb4e8G=t-e=EJ1503vt7TkpCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGTXFp867AMUZ_fEKxG9uAoR1H1AirVHi3-ayJ=KTQk9L+C7+g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMAZufR7gUrwkS7Tf5GOfg+ZtsZWGcn-8YLCvnmYnTgfFw@mail.gmail.com> <544035DE.8000606@matthew.at> <CABkgnnUNgWaauS6-nZ5fcExjsMPy4ZGPXaahduzA39=iqh9+fQ@mail.gmail.com> <D5D11F2B-9E32-4932-A601-F1D7FD50C706@gmail.com> <E36D1A4AE0B6AA4091F1728D584A6AD2400329E2@fmsmsx118.amr.corp.intel.com> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17828E5E2BF9@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:54:08 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsANa4dyWgyh4haN8Arhoqwf_H+5WxYrDBzHudFK5Fx9w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11339a6446161c05059220e2
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/xsBA1EW-AGXiYzERkUqoTD3IKqU
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
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, 16 Oct 2014 22:54:14 -0000

+1 as well. There is nothing of consequence that changed since this
discussion happened last time, so there is no possibility for the decision.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) <
Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:

> + 1
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Cavigioli,
> Chris
> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 5:41 PM
> > To: Bernard Aboba; Martin Thomson
> > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
> >
> > I completely agree.  MTI is wasting time, given we know the industry is
> > split between H.xxx and VPxxx ... and given we know that H.264/VP8 will
> > become H.265/VP9 rapidly ... we need to ensure WebRTC works with various
> > codecs and guide the industry towards VP8, H.264, VP9, H.265 (not some
> other
> > variant).  There will be some vendors who support both formats and some
> who
> > don't.
> > -chris
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
> > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 3:03 PM
> > To: Martin Thomson
> > Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Plan for MTI video codec?
> >
> > One thing we could do instead of wasting time on MTI is to actually make
> > progress on Sections 4.2 - 4.4 of draft-IETF-RTCWEB-video, so we could
> > actually interoperate regardless of the codec.
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Oct 16, 2014, at 2:28 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 16 October 2014 14:17, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at> wrote:
> > >> And that's because something substantive has changed, or simply
> > >> because wasting the WG time on this again is more entertaining than
> > >> actually finishing a specification that can be independently
> > >> implemented by all browser vendors? (A specification that we are
> > >> nowhere near having, as far as I can tell)
> > >
> > > Personally, I've found the reprieve from this fight refreshing.  And
> > > it would appear that we've made some real progress as a result.  I'd
> > > suggest that if we don't have new information, we continue to spend
> > > our time productively.  If we can't find topics to occupy our meeting
> > > agenda time, then maybe we can free an agenda slot.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>