Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise?

cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org> Mon, 16 December 2013 18:02 UTC

Return-Path: <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996FC1AE072 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:02:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UGV7qhmw17Tw for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:02:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-f176.google.com (mail-ie0-f176.google.com [209.85.223.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F55C1ADF86 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:02:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id at1so6718122iec.7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:02:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=HB97ysQjDWUa03QijSWTBTN2r6c3Pr4avUWuNGDoQpI=; b=UWuG+WDzuFWKSIPxGoApTNtQ90700/f/rfZlnP6cAwe8XW8CnNhEXVOfKgXE8Wosx6 0O1qNGn3bvzPNZJvL7zAy1BNJJdVz2aD5ICdRF44zd8BRMbFosm7n0dcViPj6H1gSKCF 7lIWuLnCPI5whFeauXuJbTCvx0sJ1uStAEBPExBTWE5z5ceGfX4Z3Uqq/IAMRt++y0Xl 7GkZbluHVuK9/LZV8kOaLoRwE36C2ezMmUD5HvVbbMlTBpfDTuIjn7nLd/S6OVktjmeh CJELJDO7XFlfbmskgu1LHb/CoaPFk1kBTQi6WHDHNyf111XoHV8pYfQJ51N1DkbGLo7R eOhw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnkaRBGoehiuoypq1ZOP+IOVA9fIhzu4G2eb6PWX0bVdLJ5yxgfasl5dGGUKluvTyvSGsYd
X-Received: by 10.42.147.66 with SMTP id m2mr2431549icv.59.1387216968574; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:02:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] (206-248-171-209.dsl.teksavvy.com. [206.248.171.209]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t4sm17411166igm.10.2013.12.16.10.02.46 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:02:47 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52AF402B.7020602@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 13:02:19 -0500
From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: John Leslie <john@jlc.net>
References: <CAMwTW+g6q0gRbdioEkw8aUjpBY1s=V=sHbPNXaebFbhr6WihJQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNx5wpKDgd6TgA9U3_nxEKXdCsXpo8Kp663yQ6e_iN9vQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131215075757.GB3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <52AE54F8.5070300@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBNqE25O+BNLboXDrJ1ypp26uRAw8ehwtyor9gJccpuzGw@mail.gmail.com> <52AE759C.7020209@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBMjTGs41t7y=xvaLdn4i63HxC2YQUkrd-itq=VkuKvpTA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9129.8090702@bbs.darktech.org> <CABcZeBPOxqa2YQxOrTp9sVF-tQrpg-Kn=CbazBXOx_9dajhUZA@mail.gmail.com> <52AE9E0C.9060707@bbs.darktech.org> <20131216170820.GD82971@verdi>
In-Reply-To: <20131216170820.GD82971@verdi>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------060505080007050507030609"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Is there room for a compromise?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 18:02:51 -0000

On 16/12/2013 12:08 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>> If the peers are compatible, there is no need for transcoding or
>> older codecs.
>     (Please don't forget that so long as _one_ endpoint supports both
> H.264 and VP8, the peers _are_ compatible. This can work to make
> either "two of" or no-MTI acceptable.)
>

Correct. My point is that the MTI discussion only impacts the case where 
the peers are *not* compatible.

I bring this up because some people are rejecting [older codec] for its 
quality/bandwidth ratio. I am trying to point out that:

  * We're only talking about a subset of peers that are not compatible
    with each other.
  * Of that subset, a further subset of the use-cases require multiple
    high-quality videos using low bandwidth.
      o Most people need one high-quality speaker and many small
        "talking heads".
      o Almost no one does this over a mobile connection (even when VP8
        and H.264 are available).
  * Networks and codecs are getting faster every day. Legal barriers are
    going away at a much slower rate.

We are in a much better position to improve the user experience if 
problems are technical in nature (network, codec speed) versus legal in 
nature. For that reason, I'd much rather err on the side of older codecs 
than IPR-encumbered ones.

If someone manages to convince MPEG-LA to become more transparent then I 
might revisit this decision, but at this point it's looking highly unlikely.

Gili