Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT minutes for RTCWEB day two

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Sat, 30 March 2013 07:47 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94C8121F8B65 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7qYko6rRSb-l for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:47:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com (mail-lb0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2E0321F8B61 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:47:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id t1so765227lbd.24 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=NhAxiDEXNqdidLBzAOXU3G7hzIU7KJoGo9eT8u+L9aY=; b=0fubYmxi3dn6fQfr+ht5kJH9u8ecrubOQrdX6OwC2liKQRJeWKri3dlKMrYFPV3IAr fW9UH1JuYMgth2//+RI4TIMYR3tJ0PzqWObAs56GjcKWGfUWJ6kpxdoacVJsrrGhLR22 aa35+fsNPwUaF5HQAfplJfevNK2Z7HzYR6fVURGHv1Ym2I5vxqrPTex3Jbjig8hlfdNa EPQrfoN0dq6w04Vu9+6UAr3ybPKWCfVH/KS3+9YM/0RSqjYnlr+d4tjInG+hV1chc0eK t5Q40DT2EajVA/WSlUCiIJsO5HXsPWpVt4zR2SDxxhC9mYiwBvD1ZYMXHR7VAyFKYDg2 FRMw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.139.7 with SMTP id qu7mr2603817lbb.18.1364629642770; Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.177.42 with HTTP; Sat, 30 Mar 2013 00:47:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <51562335.1020409@acm.org>
References: <CA+9kkMBho1Gmj_GfPorL+Q5B2wih9RDs+dNFDBdkfGT-MN6FVA@mail.gmail.com> <51562335.1020409@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 09:47:22 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiQEx5HVdb==oeypa3=mg4bygxCy6FNxV9-WtrhpFL9Yng@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0112bfa61b7dff04d91f99f2
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DRAFT minutes for RTCWEB day two
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 07:47:29 -0000

In the meething it was mentioned that 'rate control' was used for the
encodings. Does the 'rate control' constrain the encoder to stay within a
certain bitrate without spiking too much? If that is the case then we
should test with 'rate control'. If for example I have a 256Kbit/s upload
speed and the encoded stream is sent at 240Kbit/s then we don't want it to
spike to 280Kbps for a second or two. The encoders need to be tested with
settings that would be used in real-world scenarios.

Ted Hardie from the floor then said that the point of an MTI in this
> working group was to avoid negotiation failure and that you would always be
> able to negotiation away to a different one you share with the peer...


I agree, if both browsers have VP8 or both have H.264 then the MTI will be
skipped. The MTI is only there in case of negotiation failure. Instead of
ASCII art why can't we fall back to 24 year old H.261 or are there also IPR
issues with it?

Does anyone know the IPR status of H.261?
On the ITU website it lists some patents registered 11 years after the
other patents: http://www.itu.int/ipr/IPRSearch.aspx?iprtype=PS

Here are some of my opinions:
- If Google resolves the IPR issues around VP8 then VP8 should be MTI. (No
negotiation failure)
- If it can't be resolved and H.261 can be freely implemented then H.261
should be MTI. (Browsers will still implement H.264 or VP8)
- If H.261 also has IPR issues then no codec should be MTI. (Browsers will
still implement H.264 or VP8, but there will be negotiation failures. Audio
only.)
- If H.264 is MTI then not all new browsers will be willing to implement
WebRTC. Only the popular browsers will use WebRTC. So much for an open
web...Also other programs interfacing with WebRTC would need licensing for
H.264.

On 30 March 2013 01:26, Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA256
>
> On 03/29/2013 04:01 PM, Ted Hardie wrote:
> > Attached are draft minutes for the second day of the RTCWEB meetings at
> > IETF 86, please review and send comments to the list.
> >
>
> I predict that a lot of people that are not familiar with the core group of
> RTCweb participants will read this minutes, so I would suggest to check
> that
> the first time a name appears in the minutes, it is the full name of the
> person, not just the first name (and perhaps with the full name all
> uppercase
> so it is easier to find).  E.g. in the first paragraph, "Martin" should be
> replaced by "Martin Thomson" or "MARTIN THOMSON".  Same for "Giri",
> "Gaelle",
> "Daryl", "Kalyani", "Hadriel".
>
> Thanks.
>
> - --
> Marc Petit-Huguenin
> Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
> Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
> Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRViMzAAoJECnERZXWan7End0P/1z11JwuljlRMNPrT7urE584
> OwP4oQ5ayj+e9/E05NCoMMCk6guLSlPEvpcoBKeEjTFeLuN1k+R0HC9X35zYYX+F
> hsMq5px5+sN4GfoYCHkg9bT9lA9y718kSBhoUw2IBoYS3xPI3dnQwvXjzWV4UevU
> xNP7HP0VPBm/wTTVaohX2kU3VcJTBol0FsdkIJPVJ/+19KpFm6cqLaPIGx39atW3
> AQzjEhd7BzlxOEn5xK4FOy0tje9v3Hf+ifGihCDJDMTid9bFI4fGbOdKv/jkr9lG
> XHA/Uv0C31FMMBbQ1Xtni3/xTTFKuHNhcaaBDPX/yuKLbmWBEuOtycsBCUviUPs5
> //88tT2Y1WVWUNvc6WHfEjmpGeThT3YmRjDkFRZAnVSq8rKnxJlnDJdUzvFkBdVg
> /B2wh86C6lvkh6B48d322EEJ1iMnAjWSOs2+S1x6kkTR/ckk1MwEzxl8/cpkPOJ/
> UMmCzQW5abwRA84IV2LPSemuSnUBfShWxAN50JEIUBuJPD/8rEH1vOoZkBE+SF0g
> bPJswDJN/maJjXb12GEaKhZMp/ghZqIQapoaBNLVAmWetTkOhRcICLpF4tF5yGkW
> 6lLgSOUwF4RoK68r5sP0RaHHDE1tzUt4Tp2WsTf6yONOaYM4jpjCKF1/8j7JjClk
> vnk5NuNAHxsq06pnuA1p
> =WN5e
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>