Re: [rtcweb] H.261 vs No MTI

Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com> Fri, 08 November 2013 17:05 UTC

Return-Path: <lgeyser@gmail.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 704ED11E8168 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:05:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.203, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 3Axy-B9t1Fby for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:05:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x234.google.com (mail-lb0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::234]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23CB211E80DC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:05:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f180.google.com with SMTP id y6so1702245lbh.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:05:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=lBCaaEdDLqVh28TqyxjpiU22ETxW0S1pABM8g2Ls1UU=; b=KM+Alk7BYcStCLi5zVttaYe/5XdOKiStRALSdwJy/DQfx2h9Rzae2kBE0d0V0Ii3wv 9mbYUw4Fpt1FEQ9JzlGxbFbaOv/dGtcTLoOkWAvzR89ohvDmGTBxiSepqnklkzuFQKs2 680F2Pl0NoCoxl5zUxqKjd3GclpZFsowijh1CYUfDhgGXL+OyGXyNSqBjfnU5+RZbsNm EwhbUWKbOfQqY1iub2J25MPtBOSe9P6X93rwh96ctCYghr+Jcpdfy68jyq8BMxBmhxns kjAC0e1jaDEAWdxS9LpwBAYE0JHRrNkRTQRdJotev4IjRju2g0UsPrVpDRFrGfMrBfb5 76Uw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.140.7 with SMTP id rc7mr11825743lab.12.1383930318937; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 09:05:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.114.168.70 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:05:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <BD13DCC2-936D-4534-85E9-768DF7804F88@westhawk.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 19:05:18 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGgHUiRMGgcZtsgcfZ9Cu42KivwAt3QAnsSzL0P_VrTx9aEJUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Leon Geyser <lgeyser@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113467da0de47d04eaad63ba
Cc: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
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 17:05:21 -0000

Hi Tim,

So the question is in the small likelihood that VP8/H.264 can't be
negotiated and there is no transcoding in-between, is it better to show no
video than some video?

>>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.
How does dropping frames on H.264/VP8 differ from dropping frames on H.261?
Hope it isn't a dumb question.



On 8 November 2013 18:08, Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk> wrote:

>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>