Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

cowwoc <> Thu, 14 November 2013 07:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43CE621E80D2 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:04:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.988
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.988 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.689, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tAFEugaBEfDK for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F4E21E8087 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:04:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id to1so2150903ieb.31 for <>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:04:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=wDq9DWugAM3R43w/0u7saTISjtzBd4kVQynjyYUQ05Q=; b=c4+He7BpM4qBbVppFkG2HUBUw3Zx5MqvhaxlA4u4FsewphIe6QZHq188r2XQWQdm9e 8olW6/kn0+6PvCRS1iBzM+Ur6tL8Or9o/fDAYorSf6ZkM80hvXN5zG7jfiiiKMnrD4H/ vwW37wn6oqlKhWgQWvkbJ0CQVE9adv16iazZlhuJqWN/7ot99C6yHmO5XXUKHWV3fSus Z5P1I/WHrcN/Ct+KB7pW00Zohdkioqq8DwqBzB4T0bAHuTqwV8dcKXP68ZCtaO+3PC3v 2qu1FQIrW5Mg/3m70Q/oHDBFQ31jtTSyDteEZh2Q5n463/gm/0T7txd3PEI0sVUFRG8h 2+YQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmy9Z5f9kfrKEE1Th7J3p+wVCdod75t36h+5VYPvndY1FMmZ81WU8a/U2kjdQZWb0SNpr3H
X-Received: by with SMTP id j9mr528176igj.52.1384412666754; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id v2sm2715317igz.3.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 23:04:26 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 02:04:08 -0500
From: cowwoc <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?Ik1hcnRpbiBKLiBEw7xyc3Qi?= <>
References: <> <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 07:04:33 -0000

On 14/11/2013 1:25 AM, "Martin J. Dürst" wrote:
> And again, it is misleading to imply that I am advocating the mass-use
>> of H.261. I am only advocating the use of this codec in the 5-10% of
>> cases where the clients fail to agree on a common upgrade path (to VP8
>> or H.264). In those cases, I'd happily accept H.261 instead of dropping
>> the call. You can still transcode, if you so wish.
> Having had a look at the sample, I'd say "it depends".
> If the video were used to discuss e.g. some details of a new physical 
> product, higher resolution and color may be rather important, and H261 
> insufficient.
> If it's just to get a quick impression of the person at the other end 
> of the call, I guess it would be okay, but in that use case, there's a 
> high chance I'd overlay it with some other document even if the video 
> quality was much better.
> If it's one of many videos of participants in a conference call, 
> grayscale may be disappointing but better than nothing, the size may 
> be just about right, and the (relatively speaking) high bandwidth may 
> not be noticed.
> Regards,   Martin.

Precisely my point. It depends. There are plenty of cases where dropping 
down to H.261 is "good enough" and preferable to dropping the call 
altogether. And again, we're only talking about a minority of cases that 
will ever have to drop down to H.261.

(Note, I'm using H.261 as a placeholder. Are there other candidate 
codecs we should consider?)