Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

"Thomas Reisinger" <treising75@gmail.com> Mon, 18 November 2013 08:11 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 00EF811E8162 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:11:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.697, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 HxNyvHt2FYy7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:11:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x234.google.com (mail-wg0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C59A11E8126 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f52.google.com with SMTP id z12so5845718wgg.19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:11:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:thread-index:content-language; bh=d0i9JuygY6Qp62SQbWmH4inQsVDgYY16f6Zwr2dZ7Gk=; b=CbWwk6xvKWSu7RdJ5dOunQGmgpQUKMdxbdIden5UEtmTysn9hcUCYljveZGDTZKkQU ntEpntr/B9gvlpplLith+ebvtlgtCIXsFOEMEH5vKpm7XNJNNJl3kLobtXP7DSfaT65A Gr16SA8bCE0Cmqtg0DTlNoFcPDvKp3nQkhCa3PAX8FxQDVG0y9C/ijZlzETSUfDcMGOG i+7YGXdyZZDuuS4e9hI/25ak5O7DZkJalI8zqapKXUknK4mVstCEHTWMx/wYZEcIYblv Rf2/Ly/Rdc4p0JXQgQ34mjO2qqemNeWLJ0EN7Zf+iB/1y1LZ9baI8edlfbGtP6rsxmVU Ouyg==
X-Received: by 10.180.211.212 with SMTP id ne20mr16040776wic.31.1384762270240; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:11:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from papageizichta (77.119.226.28.static.drei.at. [77.119.226.28]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ey4sm21613702wic.11.2013.11.18.00.11.08 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:11:09 -0800 (PST)
From: "Thomas Reisinger" <treising75@gmail.com>
To: "'Leon Geyser'" <lgeyser@gmail.com>, <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <D9C9C6C10CA24644B3A854DB0C12E7D5014C12B5F1@gbplmail03.genband.com> <52891EDB.2050607@googlemail.com> <6A06EACB-69E2-4CE0-BDF2-1FDFD71159D3@gmail.com> <52892DD8.9050105@librevideo.org> <7DB56E1B-C97D-4D39-AA07-C4857CE3470D@gmail.com> <CAGgHUiR68pWTzORF6=R=nSi8zHeA2PxoPX33uxDRrpv6JZtykA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGgHUiR68pWTzORF6=R=nSi8zHeA2PxoPX33uxDRrpv6JZtykA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 09:11:09 +0100
Message-ID: <003e01cee435$be1f3940$3a5dabc0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_003F_01CEE43E.1FE83520"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQFCmr0eP3xRJBLBEMD8MQ+xPSdPQQKh3Qx5AkkcETYDF2FQ6QJClJ9hAVVzwo2a5mHhIA==
Content-Language: de-at
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 08:11:16 -0000

Thank you Leon. Why should we go with h.261 (except the lower cpu
requirements for en/decoding), when we have a very popular royalty free
h.263 as a common base for most video participants?

 

 

Cheers,

 

Thomas Reisinger 

From: Leon Geyser [mailto:lgeyser@gmail.com] 
Sent: Montag, 18. November 2013 08:13
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Cc: Basil Mohamed Gohar; Thomas Reisinger
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video codec selection - way forward

 

Hi Thomas,

On this list there seem to be patents listed from 1997 to 2011 for H.263:

http://www.itu.int/net4/ipr/search.aspx?sector=ITU
<http://www.itu.int/net4/ipr/search.aspx?sector=ITU&class=PS&country=-1&org=
-1&rec=H.263&prod=H.263&ps_country=-1&opt=-1&field=anokwcvd>
&class=PS&country=-1&org=-1&rec=H.263&prod=H.263&ps_country=-1&opt=-1&field=
anokwcvd

 

On 18 November 2013 08:51, Thomas Reisinger <treising75@gmail.com
<mailto:treising75@gmail.com> > wrote:

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
<mailto: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
<mailto: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 <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> 
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
> --
> Libre Video
> http://librevideo.org
>
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb