idnits 2.17.1 draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (October 15, 2012) is 4210 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Summary: 0 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 1 comment (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group X. Marjou 3 Internet-Draft P. Philippe 4 Intended status: Informational France Telecom Orange 5 Expires: April 18, 2013 October 15, 2012 7 Video codec for WebRTC. 8 draft-marjou-rtcweb-video-codec-00 10 Abstract 12 In the context of WebRTC, there is currently no consensus on the 13 video codec(s) that need to be mandatory to implement. This draft 14 gives some arguments in favor of H.264. 16 Status of this Memo 18 This Internet-Draft is submitted to IETF in full conformance with the 19 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 21 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 22 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 23 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 24 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 26 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 27 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 28 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 29 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on April 18, 2013. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 36 document authors. All rights reserved. 38 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 39 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 40 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 41 publication of this document. Please review these documents 42 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 43 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 44 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 45 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 46 described in the Simplified BSD License. 48 Table of Contents 50 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 2. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 52 3. Rationale and Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 53 4. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 54 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 55 6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 7.1. Normative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 58 7.2. Informative references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 59 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 61 1. Introduction 63 In the context of WebRTC, there is currently no consensus on the 64 video codec(s) that need to be mandatory to implement. 66 In order to reach a consensus, the RTCWEB chairs have solicited 67 internet-drafts naming proposed mandatory-to-implement video codecs 68 (c.f. [rtcweb-mail]). 70 This draft gives some arguments in favor of H.264. 72 2. Terminology 74 In this document, the key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", 75 "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", 76 and "OPTIONAL" are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 77 [RFC2119]. 79 3. Rationale and Position 81 Many videoconferencing systems exist today (e.g. fact sheets of 82 services at [h264-ftob]), mainly for professional services but also 83 for individual consumers. 85 We believe that WebRTC, when used as a mean to interconnect Web 86 browsers to these existing services, can be a driver for enabling 87 more users to access them. 89 As an example, all Orange video conferencing systems operate using 90 the H.264/AVC technology. H.264/AVC benefits from many available 91 implementations, tuned for different architectures, and has clear 92 licensing conditions. VP8 has no footprint in this market, 93 independent implementations are rare, licensing conditions are not 94 yet clarified (free license offered from one patent owner while MPEG 95 LA operates a Patent Pool with at least 12 members (c.f. 96 [press-article])). 98 With this current status, it is believed that incorporating the 99 mandatory to implement video codec having the bigger footprint will 100 permit a better adoption and interconnection of WebRTC to existing 101 services leading to a successful standard. 103 Hence we strongly support H.264/AVC to be part of the mandatory to 104 implement codecs. 106 4. Security Considerations 108 None. 110 5. IANA Considerations 112 None. 114 6. Acknowledgements 116 7. References 118 7.1. Normative references 120 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 121 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 123 7.2. Informative references 125 [h264-ftob] 126 Orange, "http://www.orange-business.com/en/mnc2/ 127 collaboration/conferencing/index.jsp". 129 [press-article] 130 streamingmedia.com, "http://www.streamingmedia.com/ 131 Articles/Editorial/Featured-Articles/ 132 WebM-Patent-Fight-Ahead-for-Google-76781.aspx". 134 [rtcweb-mail] 135 IETF, "http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/ 136 current/msg05070.html". 138 Authors' Addresses 140 Xavier Marjou 141 France Telecom Orange 142 2, avenue Pierre Marzin 143 Lannion 22307 144 France 146 Email: xavier.marjou@orange.com 147 Pierrick Philippe 148 France Telecom Orange 149 2, avenue Pierre Marzin 150 Lannion 22307 151 France 153 Email: pierrick.philippe@orange.com