Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org> Fri, 22 November 2013 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D7021AE253 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:44:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hZVuvqNAH76j for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (zaytoon.hidayahonline.net [173.193.202.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75E551AE14B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:44:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.10.40.120] (rrcs-98-103-138-67.central.biz.rr.com [98.103.138.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: basilgohar@librevideo.org) by mail.zaytoon.hidayahonline.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 367ED659C68 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:44:29 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <528FEC5A.8060701@librevideo.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 18:44:26 -0500
From: Basil Mohamed Gohar <basilgohar@librevideo.org>
Organization: Libre Video
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com> <20131122171020.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66AF@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528F9DAD.3030300@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66DE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FAAA8.8060807@googlemail.com> <7949EED078736C4881C92F656DC6F6C130EA9E66FE@ausmsex00.austin.kmvtechnologies.com> <528FC497.2080804@googlemail.com> <A3A17126-2DA7-4D41-A2CE-8580BC2FEAE4@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <A3A17126-2DA7-4D41-A2CE-8580BC2FEAE4@apple.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 22 Nov 2013 23:44:38 -0000

On 11/22/2013 06:42 PM, David Singer wrote:
> 
> On Nov 22, 2013, at 12:54 , Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>; wrote:
> 
>> And again, H.261 is only considered as fallback option to establish basic video interoperability as no single high-performance video codec can be agreed on. It would only kick into action in situations when the alternative would be "no video at all". This fallback option has to be implementable without relevant restrictions.
> 
> I rather suspect that many, given a choice between:
> a) deliver crappy video using H.261, with the unstated implication to the users at the two ends that they really need to find something that will interoperate on something better
> and
> b) tell the users directly that they don’t have a video codec in common, and to get video they need to find something that will interoperate
> 
> would actually prefer (b).  It’s less work, more direct, and more honest.
> 
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
> 

Then we need to restate one of the goals of this WG if we're not going
to have an MTI.  However, I personally disagree with that change.

-- 
Libre Video
http://librevideo.org