Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoints

+1

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Richard Shockey <richard@shockey.us> wrote:
> +1 another reason to mandate H.264
>
>
>
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Bernard Aboba
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 10:44 AM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] interworking with non-WEBRTC endpoints
>
>
>
> I concur with Marshall's objections, based on my discussions with customers.
>
> Video conferencing systems are frequently purchased with the expectation
> that they will be
> used to communicate outside the organization, as well as with other devices,
> including PCs,
> tablets and mobile devices.
>
> As an example, an enterprise with a video conferencing system may use it to
> communicate
> with employees in the field who are using a notebook, tablet or mobile
> device.
>
> Therefore, while an enterprise may have a finite number of video
> conferencing units,  it will
> often deploy them along with orders of magnitude more devices that
> interoperate with those
> units.
>
> The usual requirements for a desirable mobile or tablet implementation apply
> here -- power
> management (e.g. ability to utilize native encode/decode hardware) is an
> important capability.  Also,
> the cost of supporting video transcoding for a large number of devices will
> frequently be prohibitive,
> so that the expectation is that videoconferencing systems and
> implementations on PCs, tablets
> and mobile devices will be able to negotiate a mutually supported codec.
>
>
>
> On 05/02/2012 08:19 PM, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> My objection is that the proposed system will require middleware to
>
> interoperate with the
>
> vast number of videoconferencing sessions out there, most of which use
>
> RTP. From the
>
> standpoint of a video service provider, buying hardware to support
>
> video to laptops is likely to
>
> lead to requests that participants download some other software which
>
> interoperates natively.
>
>
>
> This is an existing business with a fairly large scale and installed
>
> base. Not operating the way that they do is not likely to go over
>
> well.
>
>
>
> Marshall,
>
> I'd like to draw your attention to two numbers:
>
> - Number of installed room videoconferencing units: On the order of 1
> million.
>
> http://www.polycom.com/global/documents/company/video_conferencing_by_the_numbers.pdf
>
> - Number of installed Chrome browsers: On the order of 200 million.
>
> http://www.techradar.com/news/internet/google-chrome-browser-hits-200-million-users-1033951
>
> (pulling out Chrome just because I know we've promised to ship this stuff.
> And we auto-update, which means most of the users WILL be running a
> WebRTC-compatible browser the week after we release it.)
>
> I argue strongly for doing things in ways that we know work, which means not
> inventing stuff until we really have to. And I've even argued strongly for
> doing things in ways that *permit* interoperation with those older devices -
> but not in the cases where doing so risks harming the security, stability
> and operational complexity of the installed base that is to come.
>
>                     Harald
>
>
> _______________________________________________ rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>