Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI

"cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@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 2651711E81A6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:25:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.179
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.179 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.180, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6, 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 Jf5PQCoLc5xn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:25:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C615E11E80DC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:25:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f178.google.com with SMTP id q59so2327269wes.9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:25:28 -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=NkHztJmR3v6NmMovLH7RC4BCmgMyh03bQXKXl9s/F2I=; b=VF+u96tbe3gInKf5xLe7ZAweTH4y11clqEaXgyb+Bjq6uCi1qOCuQT77nKgCOsgBxM zYPrLEcS2dfiITS9Ptxjlu/yD5CT9CfWpX9GE6P7Ao296U/WsiW8zQjR5r4zKzhsFlUI ImdIbHXMbPCLL8koQjhemLG2Xp2GCx9m3Z9CZHQ3RLZBf1qopDpMHsdlJPXXIiIJsnFc X9mHfH/HFsl35SBPn/QPlHyrINycxBDEE2qQc5EpAnnqULZKdsX3k6JnzXmcRTXRM4mg 8AkKWmTIzynOe2rMQEqUPCWoxydHqtwuUdaCCCjxVl+QaVWYjfgDqDSxWIYj6b/R9aOz htvA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.79.163 with SMTP id k3mr686716wix.34.1383931527923; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.99.68 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:25:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.216.99.68 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:25:27 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <527D09CA.1060703@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <CAAS2fgQ730sjjv5Ly0_TFmdz=ryhPN13+A69_0_MedotHGEthg@mail.gmail.com> <527C38FF.6040000@nostrum.com> <CAAS2fgSGdmFaxZ4jtYjyG9tDqKv09-L8FXSybeHrgvzNtdqYpQ@mail.gmail.com> <527C7CFE.4080700@bbs.darktech.org> <1E0D9A14-E629-4CB2-AC67-5860B24DB7D7@westhawk.co.uk> <527D09CA.1060703@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:25:27 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQGTLTTLJW3TtP2QGC_-Y2C-ENWiWE-FVPDyW-f1vBCpA@mail.gmail.com>
From: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043d65571d8ffc04eaadab26
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org, Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI
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: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:25:30 -0000

On Nov 8, 2013 7:57 AM, "cowwoc" <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> On 08/11/2013 6:31 AM, Tim Panton wrote:
>>>
>>> If H.261 is MTI, you can still upgrade to VP8
>>> If H.261 is MTI, you can still upgrade to H.264
>>> If H.261 is MTI, you can still use transcoding to connect VP8 to H.264
>>>
>>> Using H.261 as MTI is a big win over no MTI because "no MTI" means
we're forced to do transcoding, whereas H.261 as MTI means we can still do
transcoding if we want, but we don't have to.
>>>
>>> And yes, I agree that a more ideal solution is to choose VP8 or H.264
as MTI (or both) than H.261... but if worse comes to worse, I don't see a
benefit to choosing "no MTI" over H.261.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have a counter-point?
>>
>>
>> Ok, I'll bite. (Despite having proposed H261 at the mic in Paris, I've
changed my mind in the meanwhile.)
>>
>> The H261 option makes _everyone_ equally unhappy.
>> Say we can't agree on whether to use VP8 or H.264 as MTI. We can then
simply settle on a codec with expired IPR such as H.261. H.261 is the codec
everyone loves to hate but allow me to point out the following:
>
>
> That's the goal :) Really. Making everyone equally unhappy gives them
incentive to compromise to get a better experience.
>
>> The browser makers have to support and test 2 codecs - one of which they
don't want anyone to use.
>
>
> It's either that or push the pain onto the application developers (no MTI
= transcoding). Given that choice, I'd rather inconvenience a handful of
browser developers over hundreds of thousands of application developers.
>

I disagree that "no MTI = transcode"

There is no scenario I would permit transcoding as normal mode of
operations.  If sdp cannot find a common codec, fall back to voice-only.
And, at the implementation discretion, offer the user advice about choosing
a browser.

CB
>> The javascript folks have to do massive amounts of digging in the SDP to
try and work out if the remote offer of h264 is
>> transcoded in a middlebox or is direct vp8 or perhaps that h261 is the
best option - or perhaps no video is applicable.
>
>
> This problem is not specific to the choice of codec. SDP is a terrible
choice as an API surface. The WG can improve the situation by providing an
API call that retrieves this information on behalf of the user.
>
>> The middlebox guys get to implement 3 different codecs, and test
transcode paths between all of them. The video mixer guys
>> can't do video size switching well because h261 hasn't got that concept.
>
>
> Transcoding is already very complex. Simplifying it is not one of my
goals. And again, we're only talking about the minority case where you're
forced to fallback on H.261 (think of it as having to fall back on TURN).
>
>> The user gets a totally variable experience based on factors she cant
control. There will be lots of dissatisfied users who's
>> first video call happened to be h261 and never go back to the service -
better to fail back to audio than connect with a poor experience.
>
>
> The argument is H.261 is better than transcoding, as opposed to H.261 is
better than VP8 or H.264. I'm *not* arguing the latter. If this turns out
that H.261 is so terrible for their particular use-case (it should be fine
for most), the application developer can still choose to do transcoding.
Mandating H.261 as MTI just gives them an extra option they normally
wouldn't have.
>
>> Part of the problem is that O/A + SDP isn't a rich enough medium for the
application to make a sensible/correct decision.
>> Given that we are stuck with OA+SDP for version 1.0 at least, lets not
make it worse by complicating the SDP and degrading the
>> user experience at the same time.
>
>
> I agree. My view remains that (regardless of the codec choice) WebRTC
should provide an OO interface on top of SDP and ideally eliminate SDP from
the API altogether. Even if we choose no MTI, people are going to want to
dig into the SDP to find out if the connection ended up choosing VP8 or
H.264. That's painful, whether or not H.261 is MTI.
>
>> Sorry to be so negative.
>> I'll try and come up with a more positive solution next :-)
>
>
> No problem. I appreciate the feedback.
>
> Gili
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>