Re: [rtcweb] Making both VP8 and H264 MTI

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Tue, 05 November 2013 23:25 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 41AD621E80D8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:25:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.665, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
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 y8mk8Vgb-0fT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:25:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vb0-x22c.google.com (mail-vb0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D8BB21E808F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:25:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id 11so2882912vbe.17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:25:31 -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=CeQpFPkMjmy1B89gtK/lTqI3+6Hdoz9IOOtv897XWFw=; b=MV1RmftVKqup8MlOldTH+m+Y8ooOMpCJySYihjucvYoU3llQ28AGKBjB7aQXRUhCt/ JLJNJkd65t9D7SUIwKHKogvtTPGyjm1VdTeO1VyP+aOQRj+UaTFB9X/Y7BuQWxQr4Itq hDU4kOLLH7NWA8LVMRFwcWpPlC6MChBtWYogEthoYjGQAPN8US+SIJlaxUfkuOmHORzj rFs9zax+IEElJOGCtE62Zu15UQ8ORDTfVgKvhaDrf3ReMXkBv2Bu+gG2s3hQ5dEcaPc7 00OpQzn+3rwVmZfIcGBvZB0ZpMpe6ACTI77DcVJyAYo3UeOzceqa28D+h018jFkpWSB0 TPww==
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=CeQpFPkMjmy1B89gtK/lTqI3+6Hdoz9IOOtv897XWFw=; b=kAh9YEpSsErGPVIUv6w/sOffykN4imgs9qrJbGAW4PIJRRtWsjZtIgUNqab9Sz0vHh 3Jp52Wf4l3+xQxBgc/RFsJ1SvXh3011UBHZglKgEy0w3YZtF9ZwPHFmTi/vX7eyNnfy6 bnTlreV+L8DIzruAbEzCZijaq6NybhnMjQITY43F1bmoQhwfKhzR6SEx0BoB8h8+WUeO YHGwRIZ8Pje/J01kXlCMW4kfTepHJLfQ8ZGZG5xwTbWYrOCp4yaJ7IcWT2/ZSLoalzas SKQkZ+wrX0xOqXrvxkKUzlLgKztAQ9kTiKlvs7Lb0/M3/VZPSk4xw98YKzs71s3uGGVQ sL4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm7QDs82a9CUjICCbLUvBprmgXHLsU5zRVSCZF23KXrqA5MKDm6QgBSeqt7zbxiOa/mvJzEiV/JQ5uDvr50+/92VSxKHkyoDSAQQh0q+13UVT+E72dEGVrlRC34Y4kawEHWLt3lRYesLAWRFz90Icx964rBVrvd2DMZ2R6iW8C/JhtiftaIOuGxUa5IJ9O8Yak8i2Tc
X-Received: by 10.52.97.138 with SMTP id ea10mr25891vdb.31.1383693931505; Tue, 05 Nov 2013 15:25:31 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.110.101 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:25:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5279339B.9040506@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <CE9E91B2.1BEAA%mzanaty@cisco.com> <8EB7C7F2-105D-4CFB-AC06-F8BB331A4736@cisco.com> <5279339B.9040506@bbs.darktech.org>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 15:25:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3xE-e5Tdbw-V27eF38a6PhEYZEZwVMPGp8m+ogTWanCQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f38f844008404ea76597c
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 23:25:33 -0000

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
>