Re: RTCWeb proposal

Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:12:25 +0100



    On 12/04/2013 06:11 PM, Phillip
      Hallam-Baker wrote:

    
          On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 11:45 AM,
            Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

            
                Why MPEG-2?  MPEG-2 video is MPEG-1 video plus
                  interlace support.  Do we want interlace?  More to the
                  point, do we want to burden our decoders to implement
                  interlace support (which is non-trivial) when no sane
                  encoder would send interlace in a PC or mobile
                  environment, even if the bitstream format would allow
                  for it?
                Stephan
              
            
            As I said in a previous message, the actual choice of
              encoding does not really matter so much as the criteria.
            

            The group is unable to come to agreement between the
              two choices. This is because both choices are de facto
              encumbered even if there may be dispute about the validity
              of the claims.
            

            What I thought was a settled principle in the IETF is
              that the IETF does not choose a encumbered technology as
              MTI if there is a viable unencumbered alternative. 
            

            H.264 is obviously encumbered so that is excluded from
              consideration. Anyone with deep pockets who attempts to
              use AV8 is likely to be sued and suffer substantial
              expense regardless of the merits of the case. Ergo AV8 is
              effectively encumbered.
          
        
    Phil, if you can't even get the name of VP8 right, I think you are
    demonstrating a basic lack of knowledge about the area.

    
    You are also proposing new solutions that seem to be minor variants
    of solutions already listed on the list of possible solutions (
    
    http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/wiki)
    and doing so in a forum that is not the working group that has to
    come to consensus on any proposal.

    
    One of the things this group does NOT suffer from is a lack of
    uninformed punditry.

    
    Tell me again why you think you are contributing positively to the
    discussion?

    
                 Harald