Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Straw Poll on Video Codec Alternatives

From: Daniel Theophanes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 23:38:36 -0800

> 1.  All entities MUST support H.264
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:

As this is only a MTI, hardware systems that only work with H.264 can
still require software to have that codec. People who use such equipment
can use software that supports it; "legacy" hardware can equate to an
additional codec requirement to use it.

There ARE other entities other then MPEG-LA that have valid patents on
H.264. There MAY be other entities other then MPEG-LA that have valid
patents VP8. Nokia's patents are still failing to hold up in court
against VP8 last I heard.

Cisco's binary download is fine for people who think of software as
platforms and for system architects. It even has at least one valid use.
For a software developer who works in many different languages and
various points in the entire stack on different architectures with
experience in system administration, it feel like a nightmare waiting
to happen. Yes the code is BSD, but there is no patent grant. Yes, I
understood the proposal well before the helpful video.

It has never been denied that most platforms with hardware encoding
support do not expose that to applications and most existing
application already do it in software regardless of the hardware
capabilities. Thus hardware support appears to be a non-issue in
real existing video conference implementations.

Google appears willing to offer a binary download just like Cisco to
mitigate risk to those inclined to do so. That way Google distributes
the codec. I don't care for such a binary download, but some apparently
think it acceptable.

I'll take the dog that hasn't bitten but may yet bite to the dog
known to bite.

> 2.  All entities MUST support VP8
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

Yes

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 3.  All entities MUST support both H.264 and VP8
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:

There only needs to be one MTI by definition.

> 4. Browsers MUST support both H.264 and VP8, other entities MUST
> support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 5.  All entities MUST support at least one of H.264 and VP8
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 6.  All entities MUST support H.261
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

Acceptable

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:

The posted H.261 video samples appeared to be acceptable quality and
acceptable frame rate for a fall-back codec. Maybe that's all the MTI
should be. Most people interact within social groups that have similar
preferences and pressures so it is likely a better codec will be chosen
much greater then 70% of the time.

> 7.  There is no MTI video codec
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:

The ASCII Art codec MAY be preferable to this. Oh, maybe that's not an
IETF standard, I mean RFC, I mean...

> 8. All entities MUST support H.261 and all entities MUST support at
> least one of H.264 and VP8
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

Acceptable

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 9.  All entities MUST support Theora
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

Acceptable

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 10. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.261}
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

Acceptable

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 11. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, H.263}
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 12. All entities MUST support decoding using both H.264 and VP8, and
> MUST support encoding using at least one of H.264 or VP8
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No.

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 13. All entities MUST support H.263
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 14. All entities MUST implement at least two of {VP8, H.264, Theora}
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 15. All entities MUST support decoding using Theora.
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

Acceptable

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:
>
> 16. All entities MUST support Motion JPEG
>         a. Are you in favor of this option [Yes/No/Acceptable]:

No

>         b. Do you have any objections to this option, if so please
>            summarize them:

-Daniel Theophanes
 Software Developer