Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 20:12 UTC
Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17FF01AD845; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:12:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QqPFepJjq4Mo; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:12:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x234.google.com (mail-we0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C40A31ADBFF; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:12:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f180.google.com with SMTP id t61so6739607wes.25 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:12:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=jimGY7k98L6kiDgFU7p4ePE7mjatZTMVGgssKUValnc=; b=F2dVx8KkcRdjStKDF7l7MQYKg3derRk2gqTWu6UAvoljWnX8HyjlK2UVUQ5io5hme0 V0AUNXdYmNEjuiMKhPntEygS1Aw/kHfQcEOVoTzcscmNINCQV/GsXk4s/eGwl4rWkjkf EaorDZkIvVvk0lTHKHUuD/1v9nRn3fIjqQ9Uskb2dEcgHVAgWgelkDNeYTg3E9ogbtti gbFelysCxdKToZnZ5gdUxk/CbNFkEYwztkcaUxCXIjMepkyzal+cNVODlki68pjvTqC9 cmV8eRi8OhMDGKfLO/FFg3t6Ug0GN24ljEtMhNOjv6l88Wrk+88fQIkOKcx8DH8K4DKC yytw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.189.80 with SMTP id gg16mr19721244wic.32.1386015153919; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:12:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.243.136 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 12:12:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6mkp9912042i9gkg87fc3ji8g9tkv6uqrh@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <DUB127-W23531D0E8B15570331DB51E0EE0@phx.gbl> <52974AA8.6080702@cisco.com> <1F79045E-8CD0-4C5D-9090-3E82853E62E9@nominum.com> <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net> <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com> <5006.1385666853@sandelman.ca> <D4D5920A-E041-42E8-BB1C-1CB24FBEE3F4@nominum.com> <BLU169-W1176AB7AECF0757C380A70E93EE0@phx.gbl> <20131129060936.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <6mkp9912042i9gkg87fc3ji8g9tkv6uqrh@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 15:12:33 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMm+LwhUB+Ppj8QXNA+=2thi0ZTgymc1G7=XH9jd+agEEAvwHA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam@gmail.com>
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c22314e71c8b04ec92ccb5"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, Ron <ron@debian.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 20:12:39 -0000
On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote: > * Ron wrote: > > 2. Can anybody show a sustainable objection for why we _can't_ use H.261. > > > > If they can, we're probably doomed. If they can't we have an initial > > choice for MTI. > > I have not seen a convincing argument that H.261 performs well enough to > permit real-time video communication at reasonable quality and bitrates. > That is irrelevant. MTI does not need to be a good choice, it merely needs to achieve interoperability. If someone can support HD video over a 300 BAUD connection, the technology is almost certain to be proprietary. That does not mean that the IETF has to accept the proprietary technology as MTI because it is the only one that supports the needs of 300 BAUD users, it means that that group of users may not be supported by the MTI CODEC. MPEG2 will come out of patent in the nearish future and it is a not terrible choice. It is certainly not the best choice but it isn't a horrible one. > I have not seen recent statistics for Germany but I suspect it is common > that household members share a line with an upstream of around 640 kbps, > that would basically allow for two 320x240 H.264 CBP + Audio streams at > 30 fps in good quality. Would H.261 permit at least one stream at the > same quality? If not, then nobody would use H.261-only WebRTC products, > and people are not going to appreciate if a VP8 product connecting with > a H.264 product falls back to H.261 to avoid negotiation failure. People would use H.261 if that is all the clients at either end supported. The value of the H.264 patent pool would be reduced from the ability to perform the application to a quality issue for some subset (a clear minority) of the user base. We knew that there were real security and performance problems with 3DES when we made it MTI in TLS 1.0 but that was the best choice available at the time. If there was an optimal technical choice that had no other consideration there would be no need for MTI clauses at all. -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Jari Arkko
- Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eliot Lear
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternative … Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eliot Lear
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Rescorla
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Lemon
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Sam Hartman
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Rescorla
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Cullen Jennings
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Lemon
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Melinda Shore
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Tim Bray
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Yoav Nir
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Michael Richardson
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Lemon
- RE: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Bernard Aboba
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Carsten Bormann
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Roberto Peon
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Cridland
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Stephan Wenger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Roger Jørgensen
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Joel M. Halpern
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Melinda Shore
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ofer Inbar
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb cb.list6
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Hardie
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Melinda Shore
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Scott O. Bradner
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Paul Hoffman
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ted Hardie
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Avri Doria
- RE: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… DRAGE, Keith (Keith)
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Mary Barnes
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Ron
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb cb.list6
- Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decision p… Eric Burger
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… cb.list6
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Mary Barnes
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Carsten Bormann
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Dave Crocker
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Pete Resnick
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Jari Arkko
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Dave Crocker
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Eric Burger
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Sam Hartman
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Sam Hartman
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Bjoern Hoehrmann
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Martin Thomson
- Re: Alternative decision process in RTCWeb Ofer Inbar
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Stephan Wenger
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Eric Burger
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Jim Gettys
- 0, 1, or many standards and their impact (or not) Eliot Lear
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Hector Santos
- Re: 0, 1, or many standards and their impact (or … Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Jari Arkko
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Eric Burger
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Richard Barnes
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCW… David Singer
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Eliot Lear
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Dave Crocker
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Gonzalo Camarillo
- Re: A few thoughts on processes WAS (Re: Alternat… Spencer Dawkins at IETF
- Re: Daughter of CODEC (was Re: Alternative decisi… Timothy B. Terriberry