Re: [rtcweb] Stephan Wenger's choices

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sun, 29 December 2013 00:35 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
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 0CDF41AE417 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:35:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 fdQxl5VGrvwC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (mail-wg0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73C4F1ADFE4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:35:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x12so9355483wgg.16 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:35:05 -0800 (PST)
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=oqu6jx5KcS63/8brEZ9hanmzP3M5pWYzljAYt/5rRnk=; b=U/1xY4sN+jCWpwDtNe8oEBQeWgyZ5FLqCvMgd59AQAlaj8H1Hyq3NuJey0S8FaRFsJ A1V+d2GaIYRgg7q01SUJsIA6MnYnHY12s3sNMK1AA+KibBVN6rxMS0zgFWWtaQsk6Gd/ zfl8KIv8hBDEOXrX0cDBrfczj4EhAg+0qYxx9ci/iHd6usR3PHs/CpmwuFt3H/q3pn9o heOiM6U9iuNRADCR8bcNqF1avH0yxGZOE4OKOixkxzVzrm46V6JbGK7kMPWJej4eNA7B Sg64FWyzGHKWgXzqy9yxFM5oSMxp9Vaqnf87YCwO9l130hlIXU6q6trgAxpv+WEmQ/5y 86yQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm4cN3xyEbfSxYGSS1rYU7rcGH5yX/xvZ7kHSao+7yqFbDr1AY4DhIcbps8n3tYs65zObf7
X-Received: by 10.194.240.41 with SMTP id vx9mr11184666wjc.70.1388277305747; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:35:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.54.194 with HTTP; Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:34:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.168]
In-Reply-To: <20131228235818.GL3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
References: <52BF037D.4050706@googlemail.com> <CEE4479F.3E568%stewe@stewe.org> <20131228183148.GI3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CABcZeBOMEE9nOMzR2AisGQDTByrjsNms6qS4+DQvjUMUYyHCjw@mail.gmail.com> <20131228212423.GJ3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CABcZeBNwMPjGFZV08DV8ZFrJg0N+Lr8zD=CwUY2qxrCqw8MWdA@mail.gmail.com> <20131228230333.GK3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <CABcZeBPBXT-4UqYyTVNjGBL5wo-n0qisMC2bj+=E115YQ8m8aQ@mail.gmail.com> <20131228235818.GL3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 16:34:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPSkg09BScmXF4EazHcR2_8h68_MGiZidOS6EOQoVpMew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ron <ron@debian.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Stephan Wenger's choices
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: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 00:35:13 -0000

On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote:
> I'm not rusted on to any alternative here, so I'm inviting you to convince
> me if I'm not convincing you.  But you're not offering up much more than
> 264 legs good, 261 legs bad.

It's not an issue of H.264 versus H.261. It's an issue of modern codecs
versus H.261. VP8 quality is perfectly acceptable here. I suspect Theora
and 263 quality would be as well, but I haven't looked at enough samples
to be sure.


> If your reasoning is strong, that shouldn't be a hard question to answer
> with plain engineering facts.

This isn't an engineering question. It's a question of what you think is
acceptable to users. After looking at some H.261 video, I think it's
sufficiently bad that we would be better off with no MTI at all. Obviously,
your mileage may vary, but it's not a question that can be answered
with the sorts of arguments you have been offering (or that I can
offer you).

In any case, looking at the survey responses I think it's fairly clear
that there's no real consensus for H.261, so this discussion
seems particularly moot. Feel free to have the last word

-Ekr