Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 06 November 2013 01:01 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 AD86D21F9D52 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:01:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.78
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.78 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.197, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 FWM2EP-1q-Nf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:01:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x236.google.com (mail-vb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::236]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5779F21E80C9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:01:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id q12so2901930vbe.41 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:01:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=j/s8zcLt3+pGdQG4UszjqQPSXdRcW2egW+hgm7XOKWU=; b=dX5pEm7l8SohhnajqdeA7w5U01Qa9vIdbb3fDOmNJJxzoALuLPcCThhfNjoFIllZIg ExfGQAOOdj+R+0X+Gh9KC4q5na4TGLwHH89mCHwmP0HAVcfaVw9fNNIoFa5J7padWiuu YGaQL9EI37DcTsNeY01oyEtfiacBGg7GJT07E+iwTOFwaDBie/jJMXT8ghoikqcfbzPm SwPcLYLVdS5Zfjc48tVox1EZs0eUoW69plhY8qk+p2VQCv0LyAiXd0JvDgKvRlR03KN/ RNDAN7HAbUT3w13SPmRax2nlli9wiwU/bOvcjQW1CJkZKcOH4BgjbiS+HDXhW4XbthDr QLfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=j/s8zcLt3+pGdQG4UszjqQPSXdRcW2egW+hgm7XOKWU=; b=dSohyZJIQiR5A/f04od08xfsihd7h7eObTG38dnABIVF5P9rqAadQlvZUr5+broh96 kpBKoMW003sNbj3rsNZ8LrV0Bs7tTGkON22kNY4UrHUiFFocPtGYGnAGxMEASlPsHMgu IYepoMEJLlkH1kxGvTcE/iEjUH293kj6nxZePL6zswqtbRCWRtxEXIYcx2INxl5a6zcP AmsWFdjhYRjxkBuBnjCW95jY8hNNBqeYuy9pn6ksX9/hk1ctRcSzcy2Ti3DnWxgP1Bh2 7vu7mMrGd1IWOZy0Nr34mcOxsmkVAOg+t5Pfo0wtHHgxYnZSyEjXsy4GwmSsPeDqCm49 fwCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnfubrKvDJMi5lHMfNqsPSmYkOXayTaPd4auI57yztkRJ5d9J2sTMe48nbaVltY6RK5eUU35PxWR7MHlb2Z/klvHkCKNpMbZ5vpJMrEeoQsWHrz2cHsW+rFROoA/ZYoXvUyXy+tbBLbZNcJXskVZ6oz2gx/lGv28u8lO6qoCfsPk+Y+yTRN1zxwlRB3WamoaOxQkeIt
X-Received: by 10.58.246.136 with SMTP id xw8mr179971vec.41.1383699681652; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 17:01:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.110.101 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:01:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5279866E.1040604@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <CE9E91B2.1BEAA%mzanaty@cisco.com> <8EB7C7F2-105D-4CFB-AC06-F8BB331A4736@cisco.com> <5279339B.9040506@bbs.darktech.org> <CAOJ7v-3xE-e5Tdbw-V27eF38a6PhEYZEZwVMPGp8m+ogTWanCQ@mail.gmail.com> <5279866E.1040604@bbs.darktech.org>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 17:01:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2j8ohnHZBn=Q7bZm1EyZq9zxtuyBTvty0mkG50mEz0Zw@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc869e0076e904ea77b0bb
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 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: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 01:01:36 -0000

True P2P isn't always possible, witness TURN. So everyone deploying a
reliable WebRTC app is going to have bandwidth costs.

Those costs will be higher and/or quality much lower, when using H.261 or
comparable codecs.

On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:59 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:

>  Justin,
>
>     What happens to P2P video chat? Are we throwing that out of the
> window? A P2P-based mesh is superior to one with AWS in the middle for a
> couple of reasons:
>
>    - Privacy
>    - Cost
>    - Consistent latency
>    - Ease of deployment
>
> Gili
>
>
> On 05/11/2013 6:25 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
> The cost equation for CPU versus network is shifted enough in favor of CPU
> that considering old codecs like H.261 makes no financial sense. If you
> look at AWS pricing, the CPU cost of reducing bitrate from 1 Mbps to 750
> Kbps is more than made up by the network cost.
>
>  http://aws.amazon.com/ec2/pricing/
> 250 Kbps * 1 hour = $0.11
> high-compute instance for an hour = $0.05 (1 HD transcode = 4 SD
> transcodes)
>
>  Transcoding isn't the bogeyman people are making it out to be.
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 10:06 AM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> wrote:
>
>> Cullen,
>>
>>     In light of the fact that vendors are highly polarized on this topic,
>> I'd like to suggest the following voting order:
>>
>> 1. Should *both* H.264 and VP8 be MTI?
>>
>> If there is a consensus for yes, stop here.
>>
>> 2a. Should *only* H.264 be MTI? or,
>> 2b. Should *only* VP8 be MTI?
>>
>> If there is a consensus for either one, stop here.
>>
>> 3a. Should *only* H.261 be MTI? or,
>> 3b. Should no codec be MTI? (this implies transcoding)
>>
>>     Given the final choice (H.261 or no MTI) I suspect many vendors would
>> choose H.261 and upgrade to H.264/VP8 at runtime. No one really wants to go
>> back to the days of transcoding.
>>
>> Gili
>>
>>
>> On 05/11/2013 12:44 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote:
>>
>>> Right now there is no proposal on the table for the MTI to be both VP8
>>> and H.264 and the deadline was back in October so it's not a topic the
>>> chairs feel ready to discuss in the thursday meeting.
>>>
>>> I will note that in the past when this idea was discussed, the people
>>> who were concerned about IPR for either codec pointed out that this could
>>> only increased, not decreased, the IPR concerns.
>>>
>>> The chairs are more concerned about neither choice being acceptable. If
>>> we found out that both are acceptable, that will be a good situation and we
>>> will find a reasonable way to proceed from there that is acceptable to the
>>> WG. Alternative process is the last resort. From a chair point of view, it
>>> really better if people actually honestly answer the question in a
>>> consensus call instead gaming the system.
>>>
>>> Cullen - Just one of the chairs and I hope my co-chairs add more but
>>> they are both in meetings right now
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2013, at 9:27 AM, "Mo Zanaty (mzanaty)" <mzanaty@cisco.com>
>>>   wrote:
>>>
>>>  This is an important point the chairs must clarify. If there is strong
>>>> support for both questions, will the chair interpret that as support
>>>> for 2
>>>> MTIs, or declare no consensus, forcing us into alternative processes? I
>>>> support both as MTI. But if raising my hand twice increases the
>>>> likelihood
>>>> of an alternative process, I will only support one (despite objecting to
>>>> being forced to support only one).
>>>>
>>>> Mo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/5/13, 9:46 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 5 November 2013 06:18, Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@unify.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> How would we conclude that the community would like both to be made
>>>>> MTI?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I were to pretend that I am a process wonk, I might say something
>>>> like: if the objections to both questions are weak AND if the
>>>> objectors are unable to find reasons that pass muster.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>
>