[RTW] [dispatch] Codec standardization (Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00)

[Elwell, John]

I also agree that codecs such as H.264 AVC need to be considered, because of interworking with non-RTC-web users, conference bridges, etc.. An important part of the proposed charter is:
"* interoperate with compatible voice and video systems that are not web 
based"

John
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dispatch-bounces at ietf.org 
> [mailto:dispatch-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Botzko
> Sent: 30 December 2010 17:39
> To: Henry Sinnreich
> Cc: Bernard Aboba; rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dispatch] [RTW] Codec standardization (Re: Fwd: 
> New Version Notification for 
> draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00)
> 
> I'm with Bernard and David on this one.  
> 
> This is different from the audio case, as hardware 
> acceleration is much more important for video, particularly 
> for mobile.
> 
> Stephen Botzko
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Henry Sinnreich 
> <henry.sinnreich at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 	This should mark a good progress for the discussion 
> ending this year and we
> 	hopefully can all agree:
> 	
> 
> 	> These concepts of "self interest" not necessarily 
> align with each other, let
> 	> alone with the
> 	> "self interest" of users, who may primarily care 
> about how many other users
> 	> they can connect
> 	> with.
> 	
> 	
> 	The interests of users must be first and foremost in 
> mind for defining a
> 	standard for the default video codec.
> 	
> 	It includes not passing the cost of licensing in 
> perpetuity along to users.
> 	
> 	Given a choice for open source and/or free video codecs 
> such as Theora and
> 	VP8, the IETF has several good options to choose from, 
> also defining of a
> 	video codec from ground up.
> 	
> 	Thanks,
> 	
> 	Henry
> 	
> 
> 
> 	On 12/30/10 12:09 AM, "Bernard Aboba" 
> <bernard_aboba at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 	
> 	> For video codecs, "self interest" may be influenced 
> by a number of factors.
> 	>
> 	> For example, for a mobile applications developer, 
> "self interest" may focus
> 	> on
> 	> aspects such as performance, battery life and 
> maintenance costs.  If a given
> 	> codec is
> 	> supported in the hardware or operating system of 
> their target platform, then
> 	> the developer
> 	> may perceive it being low "cost" to them.
> 	>
> 	> For a chipset manufacturer, "self interest" may be 
> determined by the demand
> 	> for chipsets
> 	> incorporating a given codec, as well as the 
> associated licensing fees.
> 	> Typically the goal
> 	> is to maximize revenue minus cost, not just to 
> minimize "cost".
> 	>
> 	> These concepts of "self interest" not necessarily 
> align with each other, let
> 	> alone with the
> 	> "self interest" of users, who may primarily care 
> about how many other users
> 	> they can connect
> 	> with.
> 	>
> 	> -----Original Message-----
> 	> From: rtc-web-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> [mailto:rtc-web-bounces at alvestrand.no]
> 	> On Behalf Of David Singer
> 	> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 8:08 PM
> 	> To: Heinrich Sinnreich
> 	> Cc: rtc-web at alvestrand.no; dispatch at ietf.org
> 	> Subject: Re: [RTW] [dispatch] Codec standardization 
> (Re: Fwd: New Version
> 	> Notification for 
> draft-alvestrand-dispatch-rtcweb-protocols-00)
> 	>
> 	> Heinrich,
> 	>
> 	> 'best' is not always IPR-cost-free.  Sometimes it is, 
> sometimes it isn't.
> 	> You seem unable to see any other possibility than 
> your own, alas.  I could
> 	> wish for 'fates' for any number of technologies, but 
> I don't: I choose them
> 	> when they suit, and others when they don't.  I 
> suggest we do the same.
> 	>
> 	> I have no objection to the development and deployment 
> of new codecs, with
> 	> varying terms, quality, complexity, and so on. This 
> is a varied market that
> 	> deserves varied tools.  I do object to making 
> decisions based on only one
> 	> criterion, however.
> 	>
> 	>
> 	> On Dec 26, 2010, at 18:12 , Heinrich Sinnreich wrote:
> 	>
> 	>>> I think we should consider the balance
> 	>>> between cost, risk, quality, and existing adoption, 
> and it would be
> 	> foolish to
> 	>>> omit cost-bearing codecs from that analysis, as 
> H.264 is widely used
> 	> already.
> 	>>
> 	>> I am not sure where this discussion is going, though 
> it reminds us of the
> 	>> discussions when arguing about SIP vs. H.323 in the IETF.
> 	>> "Everybody" was shipping H.323 in overwhelming 
> quantity, but somehow the
> 	>> IETF did not buy it.
> 	>>
> 	>> As an hopeless optimist; maybe H.264 will have the 
> same fate since at
> 	> least
> 	>> it's considerable IP baggage is so well known...
> 	>>
> 	>> It is hard to imagine the IETF and indeed the market 
> will ignore the
> 	>> creativity of all the codec developers out there and 
> the evolving
> 	> technology
> 	>> that empowers them. Plain self interest should 
> motivate embracing new
> 	>> IP-free a/v codecs for the RTC Web. They will arrive 
> anyway one way or
> 	>> another.
> 	>>
> 	>> [Well deployed technology has a proven way to make 
> it over the threshold
> 	>> into history :-)]
> 	>>
> 	>
> 	> David Singer
> 	> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 	>
> 	> _______________________________________________
> 	> RTC-Web mailing list
> 	> RTC-Web at alvestrand.no
> 	> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtc-web
> 	>
> 	
> 	
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	dispatch mailing list
> 	dispatch at ietf.org
> 	https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch
> 	
> 
> 
>