Re: [rtcweb] H.261

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 22 November 2013 17:44 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 7048E1AE138 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:44:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 6tqj2qsGyTwE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D1C1ADBE5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:44:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id q58so1454559wes.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=LBmXT6mG6qzbyCDn+hApDE/6/LZH9hCSwHlRzYTefYY=; b=kzAPFEianXUIDd9X+LhXNQ7BbPKIWsTc54Daw7tLYvychBhetFokWr7L5jCOrGI75x qHzJRWBP00MvrfwgAZXYUunW0Whove9Ovru0KVtFXZFr6FHAnFVhf44dwWJI4VY5U3u3 mXT4KQvtiiIwnVlX01XEl5fZbE8e01F8cudMKiIhjjxZoiC/HeiTzElRYn1W11i83xk6 ftnmMFUHK0/Fzha8whHTYJbtnCZr2jJYm22dOBsFialJQ7PO+mZdMk1Ego4CWtIoLUAP DV48kotjU2oHQUhJD5SrG4QtRkgQQZnBlh7XfL7LrDueyOqKFetmzV38DR5fQZiVq5u4 7CqA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.206.18 with SMTP id lk18mr3598168wic.64.1385142236729; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.227.134.195 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-0fwSrsT4CmTUP8cK7TJTA3J7LqDN0bbtNT4DxnQS6HnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CEB4350B.1E7B2%mzanaty@cisco.com> <CEB43444.4986F%stevek@stevek.com> <CAMwTW+jO-BQh00fmH-ueCNsVsHbHRCiwHt6X0jFbho-B89ag=Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0fwSrsT4CmTUP8cK7TJTA3J7LqDN0bbtNT4DxnQS6HnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 09:43:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWqxV2cS51dC=aq+ZAqwV5xMG-AMqnzLkRWxzUcUAiLsw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] H.261
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: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 17:44:05 -0000

On 22 November 2013 08:53, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>; wrote:
> For 1:many with MCU, I don't understand why you wouldn't do #2, i.e.
> transcode. As stated earlier, the bandwidth costs of using an inefficient
> codec (which any MCU service will incur) exceed the CPU cost of transcode.

That ignores the engineering and latency costs.  Not to say that it
isn't an option, but that's picking the holes in the wrong part of
Mo's argument.