Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI

Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> Fri, 08 November 2013 16:10 UTC

Return-Path: <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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 36D3F21E80B9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:10:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.124
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.475, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 jJiW7Fz2qSzI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:10:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp002.apm-internet.net (smtp002.apm-internet.net [85.119.248.221]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CFEE21E8121 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 08:10:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 38611 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2013 16:10:42 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 10027
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) (85.119.248.218) by smtp002.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 8 Nov 2013 16:10:42 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0466518A0A9D; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:10:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from limit.westhawk.co.uk (limit.westhawk.co.uk [192.67.4.33]) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C46F618A02A0; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:10:41 +0000 (GMT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1816\))
From: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <527D09CA.1060703@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 16:08:06 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BD13DCC2-936D-4534-85E9-768DF7804F88@westhawk.co.uk>
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>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1816)
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 08:53:56 -0800
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
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 16:10:55 -0000

On 8 Nov 2013, at 15:56, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
> 
>> 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.


And that's the key difference between us, and where I changed my mind. It isn't H261 vs nothing, it is H261 vs flash. 
I do not want to be in a position where people can legitimately say of an webRTC browser "it's better if you use flash".
Also, more options == bad thing. It means more testing, more crufty code, more errors.

The final point against H261 is that it really isn't going to work well in 3g networks or 'edge of wifi' environments with 
constrained and lossy networks. That's where the growth is. 
T.


Tim Panton - Web/VoIP consultant and implementor
www.westhawk.co.uk