I just got back from the 84th IETF meeting in Vancouver. The most interesting
part (as far as I was concerned anyway) was the rtcweb working group meeting.
One of the topics was selecting the mandatory-to-implement (MTI) codecs. For
audio, we proposed having both Opus and G.711 as MTI codecs.
Much to our surprise, most of the following discussion was over whether
G.711 was a good idea. In the end, there was strong consensus (the IETF
believes in "rough consensus and running code") in favor of Opus+G.711, so
that's what's going to be in rtcweb. Of course, implementers will probably
ship with a bunch of other codecs for legacy compatibility purposes.
The video codec discussion was far less successful. Not only is there still
no consensus over which codec to use (VP8 vs H.264), but there's also been
no significant progress in getting to a consensus. Personally, I can't see
how anyone could possibly consider H.264 as a viable option. Not only is it
incompatible with open-source, but it's like signing a blank check, nobody
knows how much MPEG-LA will decide to charge for it in the next years,
especially for the encoder, which is currently not an issue for HTML5
(which only requires a decoder). The main argument I have heard against VP8
is "we don't know if there are patents". While this is true in some sense,
the problem is much worse for H.264: not only are there tons of known patents
for which we only know the licensing fees in the short term, but there's still
at least as much risk when it comes to unlicensed patents (see the current
Motorola v. Microsoft case).