Re: [video-codec] Charter issues from BoF - one or many

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org> Fri, 18 January 2013 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tterribe@xiph.org>
X-Original-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8090221F8477 for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:37:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HOST_MISMATCH_COM=0.311, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uJnC+tslDCn7 for <video-codec@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:37:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.mozilla.org (mx2.corp.phx1.mozilla.com [63.245.216.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0AE721F8473 for <video-codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.16.25] (pool-96-241-176-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [96.241.176.56]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by mx2.mail.corp.phx1.mozilla.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6353DF20F3 for <video-codec@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:37:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <50F95E3D.2040106@xiph.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 06:37:49 -0800
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterribe@xiph.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120625 SeaMonkey/2.10.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: video-codec@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [video-codec] Charter issues from BoF - one or many
X-BeenThere: video-codec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Video codec BoF discussion list <video-codec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/video-codec>
List-Post: <mailto:video-codec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/video-codec>, <mailto:video-codec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:37:51 -0000

>> I think we should do one codec.
>
> I don't think that is realistic if we want this implemented in
> hardware. There is just too many tradeoffs and we end up with more of
> a family of codecs with negotiated options.

I don't follow this logic. Just splitting a codec into a family of 
codecs doesn't make it easier to implement all the options in hardware. 
The fact that it's hardware means if you implement some function at all, 
you always pay the cost in silicon for that function whether the option 
is enabled or not.

In any case, I know the Google folks have come out very strongly against 
multiple, non-interoperable decoder profiles in the past, and this is a 
point where I agree with them. It causes interoperability failure, and 
confusion in the market over what the codec actually is, and on the 
decoder side Moore's law tends to make supporting everything easy to do 
sooner rather than later, while still leaving plenty of flexibility on 
the encoder side to make trade-offs for the constraints of a particular 
device.