Re: MTI Codec

+1, it seems clear vp8 is the video codec adopted by everybody, re-start
the video tag codec war is a no-sense.
El 13/09/2013 22:41, "Marocco Enrico" <>

> Err… is this for real? The IETF proved to be a decent enough venue for
> determining consensus on audio codecs. What's the value to rubber stamp a
> "no consensus" on video in a different place?
> Reality check, people: the decision on video codecs has already been
> deferred to the market. Infrastructure suppliers' and service providers'
> preference is strictly a matter of cost-coverage balancing, and in the end
> it will not change a thing. Browser vendors' positions are clear, but in
> the real world we are at a point where browser WebRTC exists only in VP8
> flavour. Anyone willing to change the (pretty clear) course of action
> should seriously just focus on trying to show marketing people and decision
> makers some H264 WebRTC demo. Until that happens -- will it? -- the impact
> on the industry will be in the around of zero.
> Enrico
> On Sep 13, 2013, at 7:02 PM, "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <
>  wrote:
> > As I’m sure many of the people on this list are aware, the IETF RTCWEB
> working group intends to make a decision regarding a mandatory-to-implement
> video codec for WEBRTC.
> >
> > It feels to me like mandating a codec (as it is part of the browser, not
> a choice of on-the-wire format, already selected to be DTLS-SRTP) is really
> the business of this W3C Working Group, not the IETF, just as the
> JavaScript API is the business of this WG.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Matthew Kaufman
> >

Received on Friday, 13 September 2013 20:46:30 UTC