Re: RTCWeb proposal

[Stephan Wenger <stewe@xxxxxxxxx>]

To be fair, Philip did contribute a novel idea: decide *now* to a) require MJPEG as MTI starting immediately, and further b) require a second MTI codec (MPEG-2) later (2018, based on a undisclosed formula for patent safety, I suspect).  

I’m personally not sure that binding ourselves on a future direction 4 years into said future is a particularly good idea.  

Stephan

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, 5 December, 2013 at 04:12
To: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: RTCWeb proposal

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