Re: [rtcweb] compressed codec-free webrtc?

Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com> Tue, 29 October 2013 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <dave.taht@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 AE1CA11E8255; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.323
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.277, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 LpXZGb-+Cffd; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x230.google.com (mail-wg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464CD11E81F8; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id b13so371908wgh.3 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7q3rca2ftw1iXiJH7oQ2NjgXNtU320tcKYdQ/K6rpYo=; b=JqxRSgZnuN3Pnfovmb+4yhxTXeaUiOBdT7I64wedgWeP5hIRLElCWWk3vlrot9TSgi s726LJ1o+OPtuusaCtYBjb5EKIM5pI9TYg4DCoxfsUPfdgmAHtE27HAVQXs0ozcnlwg7 G8S1pT79YH9P+d2Lg8XPZDnd2JercX9oVcl+daDNSVzOKmHMbTORJZWmEklYoz+50CqP ccnpZJzIRxL90F3piIsJ8AXW7LzXTVnXfhVfNPoArj6aeA7yGjnDnMuUI+sqJFPyI6ta cJgiMzeD2QpbUykYt08vI3Wd1Is6ocwo943eeUFOGKNfh1UgAP/gdoE4FW7PkSr5BAQa ZeHQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.5.7 with SMTP id o7mr1166058wjo.17.1383076803322; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.67.202 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52700D33.30102@nostrum.com>
References: <CAA93jw72QwmwQ1+wqG9soa8joiuLGRiaKuYnTvkHqkQ20FQ+gg@mail.gmail.com> <52700D33.30102@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 13:00:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAA93jw5LxJbbt6y8W_aFHt7Sumd=taLfx21q960JvDQxvHZDpg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Dave Taht <dave.taht@gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rmcat@ietf.org" <rmcat@ietf.org>, rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] compressed codec-free webrtc?
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: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:00:05 -0000

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 12:32 PM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
> On 10/29/13 13:33, Dave Taht wrote:
>
> In having my eyes glaze over at the codec debate I found myself
> wondering to what extent anyone was pursuing truly low latency video
> and audio, along the lines of what the lola project has been doing for
> collaborative concerts.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.conts.it/artistica/lola-project
>
> They ship raw audio and raw video, they actually use cameras where
> they can get at scanlines and ship that (saving 16ms)
>
> So I'm ignorant of what webrtc can do is there a codec selection (yuv?
> 48 bit audio? for the rawest video and audio possible?)
>
>
> In theory, what you're looking for is this:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4175

Thank you!

> However, the caveats in that document are pretty huge:
>
>    It is important to note that uncompressed video can have immense
>    bandwidth requirements (up to 270 Mbps for standard-definition video,
>    and approximately 1 Gbps for high-definition video).  This is
>    sufficient to cause potential for denial-of-service if transmitted
>    onto most currently available Internet paths.
>
>
> Given the risk of Destroying The Internet Forever[tm] if any major browser
> vendor implemented this, I don't expect you'll see much deployment any time
> soon.

I don't see people doing videoconferences in the same qty as we do,
say, torrents (famous last words!). Certainly the panopticon might
take over the internet (but in that case delays from encoding should
be acceptable to our new robotic panoptic overloads, it's just the
pesky humans that have trouble with latency)

So, maybe running at rates like this would trouble the "Internet" a
bit now, but on internal networks, not so much.

270Mbits is a trivial amount of bandwidth for a modern switched
network. Homes and businesses that are wired are probably close to
universally switched GigE, so internal conversations could possibly
run at max speed and minimal latency.

Internet-wise, Gfiber delivers GigE, upcoming docsis standards go well
above 200Mbit, 802.11ac goes past a gig, 802.11ad goes to 7gig.

Removing a serious delay-inducing-encoding step makes things like echo
cancellation unneeded, and live lola-like-collaboration possible.


> /a



-- 
Dave Täht

Fixing bufferbloat with cerowrt: http://www.teklibre.com/cerowrt/subscribe.html