IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Fri, 22 November 2013 10:14 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
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 82D5B1AC862 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 02:14:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.916
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.916 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525] 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 x293VOVd69Px for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 02:14:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E7FC1AC829 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 02:13:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.253.231]) by scintmta02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id rAMADmAN007989; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:13:49 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.134]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 2095_186d_c7545cf0_535e_11e3_98d5_001e6722eec2; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:13:48 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (unknown [133.2.210.1]) by itmail2.it.aoyama.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04A3FBF50F; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:13:48 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <528F2E4A.4060802@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 19:13:30 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org> <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO+cd46EOXCCO+qh5OtYWZz6Fam9O0RhY=vHVGUCMfhdA@mail.gmail.com> <528E80FB.4080802@librevideo.org> <CABcZeBN0xcwO+0vBkmH9Mj3dWxKSfqu0pigH=-=c1sO85+QzWQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBN0xcwO+0vBkmH9Mj3dWxKSfqu0pigH=-=c1sO85+QzWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:14:02 -0000

On 2013/11/22 6:59, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Basil Mohamed Gohar<
> basilgohar@librevideo.org>  wrote:
>
>> On 11/21/2013 04:14 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> To take a not-so-random example, given that Firefox will soon
>>> support both H.264 and VP8, what additional implementations
>>> will it be able to talk to if it does H.261?

The Firefox example shows that making H.261 MTI is a bad idea. But it 
works out if this is changed to "two of three (of H.264, VP8, and 
H.261). Firefox will then soon be compliant. H.261 would be left for 
those who absolutely, definitely want to avoid one of VP8 or H.264 (of 
which there are many enough; otherwise we wouldn't have this whole 
discussion).

Regards,   Martin.

>>> -Ekr
>>
>> (I apparently replied only to Ekr, and not the whole list originally)
>>
>> None, but that's not the point.  Firefox is a special case for which VP8
>> is not considered a legal liability (by Mozilla) and they can be
>> satisfied, for the most part, by Cisco's proposal with OpenH264 as a
>> downloadable plugin/module.
>>
>> So, this doesn't open up anything for Firefox that it is not already
>> planning to handle.
>>
>> What it does open up is for, say, a small firm that cannot afford H.264
>> licensing, and cannot make use of Cisco's binary plugin for legal or
>> technical reasons, and can only implement VP8 and H.261, and, say, a
>> device whose manufacturers do not wish to implement VP8 for perceived
>> IPR risk but already license H.264.
>>
>> Both cases above have an H.261 implementation that will allow mutual
>> video, even though they do not share a common high-end codec
>> implementation.
>>
>> There are cases outside of browsers that are interested in rtcweb, after
>> all.
>
>
> Which of those cases are going to want to not talk to browsers?
>
> Which browsers want to do H.261?
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>>   --
>> Libre Video
>> http://librevideo.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email