Re: [video-codec] draft-filippov-netvc-requirements-01

["Ali C. Begen (abegen)" <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: video-codec on behalf of "Timothy B. Terriberry"
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 4:57 PM
To: "[e-mail]"
Subject: Re: [video-codec] draft-filippov-netvc-requirements-01

>Ali C. Begen (abegen) wrote:
>> I understand that part but what I am saying is that developing a codec that will both perform enough well for interactive video and streaming video is a tedious task. Focusing on two different things will increase the risk of failure for this wg. Maybe the wg should consider solving the first (and the more important) problem first and then see whether it can tackle the second problem.
>
>Well, I agree we can probably significantly narrow the set of use cases 
>we want to consider, but I think narrowing it down to one is too extreme.

We disagree, that is fine.

>
> From the perspective of my employer (Mozilla), for example, we need a 
>codec that works in the <video> tag and in WebRTC, and we currently see 
>a lot more usage of the former than the latter.

Sure, the amount of streaming video is far bigger than any webrtc traffic now, and it will be like that maybe forever. What I am saying is that it takes a lot more effort to beat the current de facto codecs that are used for streaming and entertainment video. The path to success is easier for the interactive video. For entertainment video, people pay for quality, they may also pay for webrtc services but it will be much less $.

>
>Focusing on interactive first may still be smart, but "success" for us 
>means solving both problems. I don't think anything we write in our 
>requirements draft precludes the WG from deciding to publish a codec 
>that only solves one of them, though, if we later decide the other is 
>too hard.

Fair enough, but then I have to say that I disagree on some of the reqs mentioned in the sections I suggested for removal. Most of them are not even reqs but just a collection of what is in the market today. Obviously if those sections are to stay, they need quite a bit work.

>
>_______________________________________________
>video-codec mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec