Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI

tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Tue, 16 December 2014 21:52 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.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 9350A1A8754 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:52:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 B5QP9VNlE6Ue for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:52:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp001.apm-internet.net (smtp001-out.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.222]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC8BE1A8766 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 13:52:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 11600 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2014 21:52:08 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 13829
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp001.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 16 Dec 2014 21:52:08 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40D918A1C65 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:52:06 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [192.168.157.34] (unknown [192.67.4.66]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E921018A0621 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:52:06 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.1 \(1993\))
From: tim panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxva4bp=6FNytHyjY5Z71Mvs=90acoygh6PLgs_GG3md5g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:52:05 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <55E22C2A-EB8A-4296-A33D-A0DC10373D02@phonefromhere.com>
References: <548F54A5.2060105@andyet.net> <CA+9kkMDNhRdbzCs9vrqDeD4CoWWK1xS5o0z3jL0DvNpDuLfCPw@mail.gmail.com> <548F5E22.2040605@andyet.net> <548F5F0E.4050100@nostrum.com> <548F5FB8.9010300@andyet.net> <548F646C.1050406@nostrum.com> <20141216150303.GT47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOAfuscG28PMAu8JJ4yAAt1-ohnuqCaeoa+jkpDkJhhpw@mail.gmail.com> <20141216152100.GU47023@verdi> <CABcZeBOykRm1RCupB6905AOikXrcrmeSjE45Yqf1mHL3aed2Zg@mail.gmail.com> <20141216162534.GV47023@verdi> <CABcZeBNDiDyYtv_0vZyO_mGuFi-dn4s0CXEo1agMmRSvsLNR8w@mail.gmail.com> <92D0D52F3A63344CA478CF12DB0648AADF363463@XMB111CNC.rim.net> <CAD5OKxscDvS7SURWido5k5tsVhmMwWU7kVvGqEcTSdAMkWw8Fg@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=JP2zCWz-OD0c2DFoguaME5fWtuq67=+bkZ4syCL2mow@mail.gmail.com> <949EF20990823C4C85C18D59AA11AD8B296427@FR712WXCHMBA11.zeu.alcatel-lucent.com> <CAD5OKxva4bp=6FNytHyjY5Z71Mvs=90acoygh6PLgs_GG3md5g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1993)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/zjyVPexEeGOqdfeTbzXbzkZgmbU
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] revisiting MTI
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: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 21:52:13 -0000

> On 16 Dec 2014, at 20:42, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as IPR free codec, unless you are talking about H.261 or MJPEG where IPR has expired. What we are looking for is a video codec with an acceptable quality (both VP8 and H.264 qualify) and reasonable licensing (both VP8 and H.264 have serious issues here).

When does the H264/VP8 IPR expire? It is clear this discussion will be kept going around in circles ‘till then.

T.