Subject: [rtcweb] selecting codec for RTCweb?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 17:03:42 +0800

Dear Magnus and All RTCweb experts,

Was the A/V codec selecting discussed in RTCweb WG? Do you think we should 
specify codec selecting for RTCweb in this Wroking Group?
It's greatly appreciated if you response even though it has been discussed 
before.
Thanks alot. 

Best Regards,
YANG Yanzi

---

From: cbran <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:13:47 -0700

Hi YANG,

> specify codec selecting for RTCweb in this Wroking Group?
Cullen and I submitted this draft proposal regarding rtc-web and the A/V
codec support.  

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-00

I presented this at IETF 81 and will be sending out an update with feedback
I have received.

> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 10:09:23 -0700

In this context, Alex and myself drafted and presented in Quebec
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-wenger-rtcweb-layered-codec-00.tx
t, which argues against mandation of codec technologies not supporting
scalability.  I have not seen any significant discussion in Quebec or on
this mailing list about codec selection, though there was some initial
noise on this topic during the BOFs.
Regards,
Stephan

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 22:12:28 +0200

> noise on this topic during the BOFs.
The other consideration that has been raised is, of course, the issue of 
license-insisted-on versus practiced-without-a-license codecs (I won't 
call them "license required" or "license free"; that would be presumptuous.)

I believe we need a baseline codec that is "good enough", but I have 
neither a clear picture on how to quantify "good enough", nor a 
conviction that the scalability advantages raised in draft-wenger are 
important enough to tilt the balance.

          Harald

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:27:42 -0700

>important enough to tilt the balance.

Hi Harald,

What you write above is IMO a reasonable position only if you are
convinced that "practiced-without-a-license" has a sustainable mid-to
long-term perspective.  With respect to VP8, I'm not convinced, for a
number of reasons, some of which I could talk publicly about when asked
(though I prefer not to load up this list with my arguments, and,
therefore, don't volunteer them now).  Based on my current knowledge, I
could accept H.261 and H.263 as being "practiced-witout-a-license", but
those two are probably not considered "good enough" anymore by many here.
Btw., I like your "practiced-without-a-license" formulation, but note that
H.264 and its profiles (including commercially highly relevant profiles
such as High Profile) is occasionally also practiced without a license, as
a few open source projects in this field indicate.  Whether this is a
particularly good business choice depends on the business model of the
person making or using H.264 based systems.  Similarly, there are (and
have been for a while) indications that VP8 could soon fall in the
"license-insisted-on" category, in which case the prudence of practicing
VP8 without entering in license(s) also depends on the business model...

Stephan