11 comments on “WebRTC Video Codec Decision is… NO DECISION

  1. The interesting thing to me (and this contains a bit of a sweeping generalisation) is that those in the room clearly favoured (without consensus) H.264 but that those online-only massively preferred VP8.

    There has been mention in the past (both on the list and during yesterday’s meeting) that H.264 is preferred by the big players and they have an unfair advantage in that they can afford (the time and money) to send their representatives to an IETF meeting, while the smaller players (who often cannot attend) prefer VP8.

    The vote yesterday appears to support this view, and I do wonder if this is something the IETF needs to consider carefully. While there is clearly no deliberate move to cut-out smaller players the costs of fully participating in the IETF process does have this effect.

    The inability of the small players to fully participate has some interesting consequences. The recent article on this site that contained a table that indicated only Google supported VP8 and everyone else supported H.264 is a good example. Yesterday’s consensus call shows that this is clearly not the case but based on the views of those who has fully participated in the process it certainly looked that way at the time.

    • Thanks for your comment, Peter. I tend to agree with you, with the following considerations:
      – In the table you mention, we included companies authoring proposals submitted by Oct 6 2013 as requested by the WG chairs. Anyone was able to submit a draft saying “Codec ABC should be MTI because of XYZ”; no restriction here.
      – I agree with you that big players can spend more cycles on IETF as some of them have full-time standards people. In our case, as small players, IETF is more like a side/evening activity.
      – When it comes to the cost beyond time dedication, one can actually participate in the process without any travel/registration expense — meetings can be joined remotely and consensus calls are always confirmed on the mailing list. But yes, it’s true big players can do some room flooding but opinions/feedback from remote participants is always taken into account

  2. Hi Victor, remember back to Berlin and our workshop on WebRTC? Looks like the prediction was correct, agree to disagree and continue to let the market decide.

    • Hi Alan, the IETF RTCWeb WG chairs have proposed to follow the ‘Alternative Decision Making Process – External review team method’ as described in RFC3929

      • They are taking proposals on what to do next. I think they said RFC3929 has never been used before as people didn’t want to either.

        The choice was only between VP8 or H.264. Both or non wasn’t on the table at this time. I think we might end up with no MTI. Which is a short term win for H.264, but means that we are not stuck with H.264 forever as part of the specification.

  3. HI Muaz Khan,

    I have problem to stored in server for video recording files in php ,
    please advice to uploading video into server video (size increase)

    how to configure to server in accessing for more users at a time.

    Please explain and advice it.

    Thanks,
    Venkat.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *