Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Thu, 14 November 2013 01:43 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 8D6A221E80C4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.804
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.804 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.173, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, 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 tt0TaJcOnhs6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-x22d.google.com (mail-ve0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77D9221E8090 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c14so1120289vea.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:27 -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=8Cx/QERFNNxbnqgPWcC1tizsuhUcCuC8H8d3BPZNMZ0=; b=DSE2pY424PkBY93fSuEyXSDFW8jOsYMLQLzkZEKJEC8EDuZsZw9bzROL9/h5HuCcAX hc5eMInrXcthEgIADRYTGIEWA/P+cy/9XVsa2GcN4t0Fg9EtapcPLipG4pk54K/O8nNr f0w79Sn9wWF2mkpqtDFf7DJlQT0dgpsQqPm5XJwNJb9Az8/gPrvYvMr3Ibnxdeac4qan wMWwiVCeGnOGVRqfCInDi7cgKlVbMOZpmTZ+UnEmNikdORE5qQWAdZ6i549JHFal8nar NFTzWJaTJZL9DoGUEuDxT+mfa+mnEnhxpsJw33cd7MhALZGXkHrdIoxDuN+TDn7P+qYU 2vCg==
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=8Cx/QERFNNxbnqgPWcC1tizsuhUcCuC8H8d3BPZNMZ0=; b=XE09SPCBdpiI1BEeHKwFZ/IRH/7OIg43hjGMygWvzsEtFSo4lyUysUi2S+b2iWFKFh 8DEsQNMU+cTpsBPLptmv0XTiRgx+2PHY4o/1fJ7lMFkkU0ZgFJC3wem5AEWGO9butomD l88PkFcXSyX+y9qvXIHfxem7fRpetQ0gh8le8ivSSGMPjNL9Ii+3jluJ7t4oK6u8dEAv s6WzObgjlhaxDZmnJ63BvWaFmHKzZMJrCUP5DSnBJGP9MNkxnq5G/cY50NJqmVGobO8k vZYYwUenn+cvBWhaQllBdYut7flY04HkNpcGQ66/M/65yxxAeinXC3rXt6jebWwlXfMX w8Rw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmOcVIQ4xhDvOLd60GxYVfJvpf1ZTz5kG8F31QgccYUoWu8k3xI2SJAp6V2hZqLI/9ImOF2GDyI2Rf/4fViKbBSJkCyi7ixFRI69vozkapyripfFRQuYB/GBM2k+S9S9l8XKL1HenPdCIMncLVafN17NDHnaqDlCT1WRqyHucW3dUAqAd2705MjsljcbRoVvcYQRxBO
X-Received: by 10.52.35.136 with SMTP id h8mr29854397vdj.6.1384393407411; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:27 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.110.101 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5283E530.8000409@bbs.darktech.org>
References: <5282A340.7010405@gondwanaland.com> <20131113165526.GA13468@verdi> <5283DADA.2080806@alvestrand.no> <5283E530.8000409@bbs.darktech.org>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:43:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1F813jpQfjUrHxRQ4JAwU9--X25FY6P-B8=8ui9_zo4g@mail.gmail.com>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3079bfa247554d04eb1935a5
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ~"I'd love it if patents evaporated...If not now, when"
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 01:43:29 -0000

On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM, cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>; wrote:

> On 13/11/2013 3:02 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
>> On 11/13/2013 05:55 PM, John Leslie wrote:
>>
>>>     Both H.264 and VP8 deserve "SHOULD implement" status. Neither,
>>> IMHO, will achieve consensus for "MUST implement" status. Yes, this
>>> is a sorry state to find ourselves in. But the marketplace has
>>> sorted out much worse problems in my memory.
>>>
>>>     And I claim that both camps are actually more likely to implement
>>> (or allow extensions for) the other side's codec if it is _not_ MTI,
>>> simply because they can back out at the first sign of lawyers.
>>>
>>>     I will not go into any details about how VP8 endpoints might talk
>>> to H.264 endpoints, but I'm _very_ confident ways will be found if
>>> we actually _publish_ an RFC saying both are "SHOULD implement".
>>>
>> I don't know if many noticed it, but one reason for my fiddling with
>> devices to show Hangouts working on stage at the meeting was to show
>> that transcoding is in fact working in real services that people are
>> using on a day-to-day basis.
>>
>> Sure, it's not optimal. In fact, it hurts. But it's not the end of the
>> world either.
>>
>
> So... we're throwing P2P out of WebRTC?
>
> If you mandate H.261 as MTI, big business can still do transcoding and the
> rest of us can use H.261. Small business shouldn't have to choose between
> transcoding and dropping the call.
>
>
Regarding H.261: Consider the following clip, encoded at 256 kbps using
H.261.
http://www-mobile.ecs.soton.ac.uk/peter/h261/missa.norm.h261.mpg

Do you think this quality (QCIF, grayscale, PSNR of 38) is acceptable for
your users?