Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Mon, 18 November 2013 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
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 B24FD11E80E2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:06:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 bBvyPGozDUA0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:06:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f182.google.com (mail-ie0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85A3C11E8122 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:06:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f182.google.com with SMTP id as1so1714160iec.13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:06:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=r+EFNfb+gfoKYWQvxmW8fosPdhpIFotILRDgJExlEoo=; b=QLZrKUfMZ6q+dye6m8XCkG7z+GZkI0SBfHgnC1nGDf6vE1Wueqwo/INlmZu48EngjV HeCevT9iByVOUWPVPM56dk+vnI2mpLZ6lF6xg1TVLwKIFquxkjoGwZB8sr5WrM4eC7GX m3DcqRyAKJeYvLc42lMxjIMDhbIsQbRLak2rc2Wy3SXK5osji05MsoIyLSdrXq+UBcKM z7YYqOIaH2/3c4PinDcszKl9vqaopz/XaTGTdDhwBqj7jBsrEmgRvp1xTPFo5OQIDs+1 eOuxVo3g37/0R+wfkzQ6pjioqEHBhwZPdnEYV6SwajJMUeXTq9OGrGz4AZqbqzK0aTOt uiYA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlAwTi2d8TdHAbuUQzo51dXQ3gOYiVbH+p1MLNX0Z+LC+aRxbQavoRzi3EhqcVjecnzJ50E
X-Received: by 10.50.129.39 with SMTP id nt7mr12178119igb.13.1384744004647; Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:06:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k6sm11461866igx.8.2013.11.17.19.06.43 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 17 Nov 2013 19:06:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <5289842C.5030406@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 22:06:20 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com> <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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 03:06:53 -0000

Maik,

Interesting :)

+1 for adding this as a new option. It gives the H.264 and VP8 crowds 
incentive to implement each other's codecs, or suffer with an older 
codec (H.261). It's a win-win either way.

My only worry is that this option will lead to the neglect of H.261 
support. So long as the working group commits to providing a "good 
enough" H.261 implementation (with a commercially-friendly license) as 
part of the reference WebRTC implementation I think we will be okay.

Gili

On 17/11/2013 2:54 PM, Maik Merten 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