Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb

Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net> Tue, 03 December 2013 13:15 UTC

Return-Path: <derhoermi@gmx.net>
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 BE61B1AE151 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:15:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 C3WGXwLpe9NR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:15:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D037A1AE135 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:15:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from netb.Speedport_W_700V ([84.180.232.48]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx101) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MbbWD-1W3zfQ28Pd-00J3cQ for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:15:46 +0100
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
To: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 14:15:46 +0100
Message-ID: <cbkr99d1ei74s2ugbn4pfkpb6ia7iuo731@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de>
References: <52976F56.4020706@dcrocker.net> <3CD78695-47AD-4CDF-B486-3949FFDC107B@nominum.com> <5006.1385666853@sandelman.ca> <D4D5920A-E041-42E8-BB1C-1CB24FBEE3F4@nominum.com> <BLU169-W1176AB7AECF0757C380A70E93EE0@phx.gbl> <20131129060936.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <6mkp9912042i9gkg87fc3ji8g9tkv6uqrh@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <529CEAA6.9000501@librevideo.org> <e5bq99dg3h6e82mnsn6k21aunc9eqlvc7q@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <529D4617.6060909@bbs.darktech.org>
In-Reply-To: <529D4617.6060909@bbs.darktech.org>
X-Mailer: Forte Agent 3.3/32.846
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:UgFqvjKjNX0no6nn5hU2TlYagb8eVJQaBTNP2Zzws3B4SEOYTTG hiLKcDd1PYwfFyEf8PPBL4PTIpOzGkhUc6DEzLw9z+P56bqvQlHnpTEkqlQTLuYlVul7xy2 AdOS3DVnolaMs8L5Pn0QynQMqEp43PvOU4w1Ro7czJiAXn510aydRgR8znHsqh3rHgdtKiN W6xXGbUafmshAg9hI/VqA==
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Alternative decision process in RTCWeb
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:15:51 -0000

* cowwoc wrote:
>I'd like to point you to http://www.netindex.com/upload/allcountries/ 
>for two reasons:
>
> 1. It states that Germany has an average upload rate of 3.13Mbps.
> 2. It shows that upload speeds are increasing over time.

That seems extremely unlikely to me, basic offerings like Vodafone's
"DSL 6000" come with around 640 kbps upstream, Telekom's "Call & Surf
Basic" comes with "up to 1 mbps", where I am right now the best DSL
available has less than 384 kbps *downstream*; that does not add up
to a situation where the median household has 3 mbps without extra-
ordinary evidence ("average" over ones that care to test can naturally
be expected to be much higher than the median over the population.)

>H.261 is meant as a fallback only in the case that the market cannot 
>agree to upgrade to VP8 or H.264 at runtime. If a sizable portion of the 
>market cannot agree at runtime, what makes you believe that that same 
>sizable portion can agree on a MTI codec? And a final question, in case 
>you disagree with everything I've written so far: How do you advocate we 
>proceed in light of the fact that we already tried to (and failed) to 
>reach consensus around VP8 and H.264?

If I were to believe VP8 and H.264 are not royality-free options that
can be used in Free implementations of the protocol then the mandatory-
to-implement codec is likely their only option to communicate with
commercial implementations. If the only option is "not good enough", I
might prefer the Working Group say so instead of offering a fig leaf.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/