IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti

Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org> Wed, 27 February 2013 17:50 UTC

Return-Path: <stewe@stewe.org>
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 B120F21F861B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:50:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tw86gfBN0O8R for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:50:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (va3ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.180.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA15421F87EE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:50:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail56-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.244) by VA3EHSOBE002.bigfish.com (10.7.40.22) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:50:10 +0000
Received: from mail56-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail56-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AB662A0331; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:50:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.240.133; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:BL2PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -19
X-BigFish: PS-19(zzbb2dI98dIc85fhzz1f42h1ee6h1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ah1082kzz1033IL8275dh18c673h8275bhz2fh2a8h668h839hbe3he5bhf0ah1288h12a5h12bdh137ah1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h18e1h1946h19b5h1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail56-va3: domain of stewe.org designates 157.56.240.133 as permitted sender) client-ip=157.56.240.133; envelope-from=stewe@stewe.org; helo=BL2PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ; .outlook.com ;
Received: from mail56-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail56-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1361987409176541_6279; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:50:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from VA3EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.240]) by mail56-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABE411A0170; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:50:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from BL2PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com (157.56.240.133) by VA3EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (10.7.99.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:50:02 +0000
Received: from BL2PRD0710MB349.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.2.145]) by BL2PRD0710HT005.namprd07.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.102.40]) with mapi id 14.16.0263.000; Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:50:01 +0000
From: Stephan Wenger <stewe@stewe.org>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti
Thread-Index: AQHOFExGxLgqgTDk7Uq8NoYnsLB7sZiMl0IAgAE+h4CAACFvgIAABKkA//97FQA=
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:50:00 +0000
Message-ID: <CD53871A.95C7D%stewe@stewe.org>
In-Reply-To: <512E463C.1070309@nostrum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.255.102.4]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CD53871A95C7Dstewesteweorg_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: stewe.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti
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: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:50:12 -0000


From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com<mailto:adam@nostrum.com>>
Date: Wednesday, 27 February, 2013 09:45
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Agenda time request for draft-dbenham-webrtcvideomti

On 2/27/13 11:28, Paul Coverdale wrote:

*If* we're going to discuss codec quality, we need (much) better data
than this.  Google's comparisons from the last IETF are much more
scientific (though with the caveat I mentioned you have to watch out
for).  I'll also assert that if the difference is minor (+-10 or 20%
either way - number pulled out of air) it's irrelevant for this
discussion.  Even major differences would require discussion as to
whether they matter.  I personally don't see a need to discuss it,
unless someone has hard facts that one or the other falls down badly by
comparison - and that we don't believe it's something that can be fixed
(especially if it's an implementation flaw).

--
Randell Jesup



So if we're not too fussy about quality/performance, what are the criteria
for choosing a video codec?



When trying to figure out what a working group is *supposed* to be doing, I'd generally start with its charter: " the working group will try to avoid encumbered technologies that require royalties or other encumbrances that would prevent such technologies from being easy to use in web browsers."

/a

StW: Oh good.  Let's fall back to H.261, or skip video altogether.  Case closed.

Stephan

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email