Re: [rtcweb] where that h264 plugin can be used

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Thu, 14 November 2013 21:54 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 1B46C21E80BD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:54:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.374
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.374 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.225, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 E+ths-yaombJ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E97B21E80B3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:54:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool-173-59-53-40.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.59.53.40]:1452 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1Vh4sF-0008q8-6A for rtcweb@ietf.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:54:51 -0600
Message-ID: <52854666.9030700@jesup.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 16:53:42 -0500
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <5282A340.7010405@gondwanaland.com> <5056AF7E-5C2C-4094-B77D-1BC52B792C03@apple.com> <55F043DB-3AF6-4A33-B504-F5B316273DDB@phonefromhere.com> <CABkgnnWCed=4CS1JmmH_4aOBGhObGEV=9b4FAK1d2H_7zscQHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWCed=4CS1JmmH_4aOBGhObGEV=9b4FAK1d2H_7zscQHg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: r2-chicago.webserversystems.com: authenticated_id: randell@jesup.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] where that h264 plugin can be used
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:54:58 -0000

On 11/13/2013 12:43 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 13 November 2013 02:34, Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>; wrote:
>> 3) Cloud platforms:
> At least for the Microsoft cloud, I don't see this being an issue.
> It's pretty standard to have a setup step once an image is deployed.

I'm not an expert on AWS/etc, but I imagine predictable and fast startup 
of instances is important.  With a plugin download (even from Cisco), it 
would seem to be worrisome for a cloud service developer to rely on this 
completing "quickly" and not having an error *ever* - and they can't 
host it themselves.  I think Cisco would have to say that (at least) 
certain versions of the binary (warts, bugs and all) MUST remain 
available for immediate download <long time>.  And anything (lawsuit) 
that for any reason forced Cisco to even temporarily stop distributing 
it would be disaster for them; so I think they'd need to bite the bullet 
and sign a license - which has costs even if you stay under 100K (and 
you have to reliably count uses, etc).

Also, if they're encoding videos in H.264 and charging money to see them 
(or for a service that includes them, and this might include even an 
answering-system I'm-away video message), they wouldn't fall into the 
Cisco-paid cap category (perhaps; IANAPL).

-- 
Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com