Internet DRAFT - draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec
draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec
Network Working Group X. Marjou
Internet-Draft P. Philippe
Intended status: Informational France Telecom Orange
Expires: April 18, 2013 October 15, 2012
Video codec for WebRTC.
draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec-00
Abstract
In the context of WebRTC, there is currently no consensus on the
video codec(s) that need to be mandatory to implement. This draft
gives some arguments in favor of H.264.
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Marjou & Philippe Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Video codec for WebRTC October 2012
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Rationale and Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
7.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Marjou & Philippe Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Video codec for WebRTC October 2012
1. Introduction
In the context of WebRTC, there is currently no consensus on the
video codec(s) that need to be mandatory to implement.
In order to reach a consensus, the RTCWEB chairs have solicited
internet-drafts naming proposed mandatory-to-implement video codecs
(c.f. [rtcweb-mail]).
This draft gives some arguments in favor of H.264.
2. Terminology
In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED",
"SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY",
and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119
[RFC2119].
3. Rationale and Position
Many videoconferencing systems exist today (e.g. fact sheets of
services at [h264-ftob]), mainly for professional services but also
for individual consumers.
We believe that WebRTC, when used as a mean to interconnect Web
browsers to these existing services, can be a driver for enabling
more users to access them.
As an example, all Orange video conferencing systems operate using
the H.264/AVC technology. H.264/AVC benefits from many available
implementations, tuned for different architectures, and has clear
licensing conditions. VP8 has no footprint in this market,
independent implementations are rare, licensing conditions are not
yet clarified (free license offered from one patent owner while MPEG
LA operates a Patent Pool with at least 12 members (c.f.
[press-article])).
With this current status, it is believed that incorporating the
mandatory to implement video codec having the bigger footprint will
permit a better adoption and interconnection of WebRTC to existing
services leading to a successful standard.
Hence we strongly support H.264/AVC to be part of the mandatory to
implement codecs.
Marjou & Philippe Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Video codec for WebRTC October 2012
4. Security Considerations
None.
5. IANA Considerations
None.
6. Acknowledgements
7. References
7.1. Normative references
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
7.2. Informative references
[h264-ftob]
Orange, "http://www.orange-business.com/en/mnc2/
collaboration/conferencing/index.jsp".
[press-article]
streamingmedia.com, "http://www.streamingmedia.com/
Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/
WebM-Patent-Fight-Ahead-for-Google-76781.aspx".
[rtcweb-mail]
IETF, "http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/
current/msg05070.html".
Authors' Addresses
Xavier Marjou
France Telecom Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307
France
Email: xavier.marjou@orange.com
Marjou & Philippe Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Video codec for WebRTC October 2012
Pierrick Philippe
France Telecom Orange
2, avenue Pierre Marzin
Lannion 22307
France
Email: pierrick.philippe@orange.com
Marjou & Philippe Expires April 18, 2013 [Page 5]
