Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

"Ashish V. Thapliyal" <> Fri, 22 November 2013 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206EE1AE241 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:54:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nRXQPl0XWmQX for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:54:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C9521AE1BA for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:54:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id x12so1695488wgg.4 for <>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:54:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=/hSkL6t6Dl8BfbfFP2F7GPBDNZqvLsIVqNq33vuO00A=; b=tQZIacjIP+1WpuRsGyOrL8+Kb990nnQ8utm/H7hu+dS96VaLY7wtv2EyINbXiD+p7x gaB6e93Jbct+bqb0e3L2Qx2VBFH0TdT7ZDSNwguPf3kzqPeIItOGfr6TWkeKEcEzVjJu sXdQVDLZ5wZ8gT6QIDBZtrqmz3FOh9M7skwWZWqCxGigLAZ4RVxLosQCRIreJGlih7Nc AqexqCO2b0dx7uTbChLx2xhGVASs7RG3B/747DjOKdigTN5uOiPp7mOoM4n9W6fF/+QR OF+B7K3O/zMWyGTanudR1zsvx8dH45pBD3cgSx5Dndos4qnds8CeoVPIpn40QwuYmcM6 mW2Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id lk18mr4413306wic.64.1385157240496; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:54:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:54:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:54:00 -0800
Message-ID: <>
From: "Ashish V. Thapliyal" <>
To: Magnus Westerlund <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3876a47290004ebcb0d68"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 21:54:10 -0000

Dear Chairs,
         I have participated in a face-to-face interim meeting in 2012 and
have been closely following the discussions on this list.

         I appreciate your heroic efforts to get to consensus on a
mandatory-to-implement video codec.  I am against the proposal to put this
issue to vote.  It will be hard to get it right and it will generate a lot
of complaints about who gets to vote and who does not.  In my opinion, a
fair coin toss, or allowing "either H.264 or VP8" would be preferable.
         Another interesting proposal, mentioned later in this email
thread, is the decoupling of encoder and decoder requirements.  In
particular, the idea of making both VP8 and H.264 decoders mandatory to
implement, while allowing a choice of either VP8 or H.264 encoders, is very
interesting.  It may provide a good avenue for compromise while giving us
most of the benefits of choosing one of the codecs.  It may also discourage
patent trolling because if one of the encoders gets hit by an unforeseen
intellectual property issue,  vendors could switch to the other, without
waiting for a change in the standards.