[AVT] RE: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism
"Osher Hmelnizky" <Osher.Hmelnizky@audiocodes.com> Tue, 06 June 2006 14:05 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FncB2-0002Wh-91; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:05:00 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FmslB-0005y4-3w for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:35:17 -0400
Received: from mail5.audiocodes.com ([212.25.125.21] helo=imss.audiocodes.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fmsl9-0003wS-Mt for avt@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 09:35:17 -0400
Received: from aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com ([10.1.0.8]) by imss with InterScan Messaging Security Suite; Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:40:12 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2006 16:35:34 +0300
Message-ID: <79B4F738DDD4EF4F85A4641A0FE5EFD60229C9D9@aclmsg.corp.audiocodes.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism
Thread-Index: AcZ9tDkxjhiynylrQ0OiUVEh7NgZFQKIYEjgAACJlHAAAMPs4A==
From: Osher Hmelnizky <Osher.Hmelnizky@audiocodes.com>
To: "Even, Roni" <roni.even@polycom.co.il>, avt mailing list <avt@ietf.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: dce614827510b4050294eeec86a3642d
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 10:04:57 -0400
Cc: Shahaf Rozanski <ShahafR@audiocodes.com>, garysull@windows.microsoft.com, cabo@tzi.org, Stephan.Wenger@nokia.com, Oren Kudovitzky <Orenku@audiocodes.com>
Subject: [AVT] RE: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Working Group <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0990882608=="
Errors-To: avt-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Roni, another question is regarding RFC3016 for MPEG4. Is specific profile-level-id requires to support all lower profile-level-ids? If we receive an offer of specific profile-level-id, but we support a larger profile-level-id, can we assume that we also support lower profile-level-ids? Regards Osher ________________________________ From: Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:13 PM To: Osher Hmelnizky; avt mailing list Cc: Stephan.Wenger@nokia.com; garysull@windows.microsoft.com; cabo@tzi.org; jo@netlab.hut.fi; Oren Kudovitzky; Shahaf Rozanski Subject: RE: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism Osher, 1. If the answerer supports QCIF=2 in sendrecv, then this is the common mode. It is implied that the offerer can receive QCIF=2 even if it will not send the re-invite with QCIF=2. The offerer may send the re-invite to fix the mode so that the answerer will not send him CIF. 2. On the Custom - the implied supported resolution is the closest lowest defined resolution (QCIF, CIF,....) Roni Even ________________________________ From: Osher Hmelnizky [mailto:Osher.Hmelnizky@audiocodes.com] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:04 PM To: avt mailing list Cc: Even, Roni; Stephan.Wenger@nokia.com; garysull@windows.microsoft.com; cabo@tzi.org; jo@netlab.hut.fi; Oren Kudovitzky; Shahaf Rozanski; Osher Hmelnizky Subject: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism Hi, According to the draft : " A system that declares support of a specific MPI for one of the resolutions SHALL also implicitly support a lower resolution with the same MPI." If the Answering side supports lower resolution is the following example is allowed? For example, if we send an SDP offer: m=video 6002 RTP/AVP 96 a=rtpmap:96 H263-1998/90000 a=fmtp:96 CIF=2 a=sendrecv It means that we want to receive CIF with MPI = 2. If we receive the following answer: m=video 6002 RTP/AVP 96 a=rtpmap:96 H263-1998/90000 a=fmtp:96 QCIF=2 a=sendrecv According to H.263 draft: If we receive an offer with a specific MPI for one of the resolutions, it means that the remote UA also supports a lower resolution with the same MPI. Can we negotiate although the parties support different resolutions? Are these scenarios valid? What about CUSTOM? How should we negotiate if the parties don't support the same resolution? Kind regards Osher
Hi Roni, another question is regarding RFC3016 for MPEG4. Is specific profile-level-id requires to support all lower profile-level-ids? If we receive an offer of specific profile-level-id, but we support a larger profile-level-id, can we assume that we also support lower profile-level-ids? Regards Osher ________________________________ From: Even, Roni [mailto:roni.even@polycom.co.il] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:13 PM To: Osher Hmelnizky; avt mailing list Cc: Stephan.Wenger@nokia.com; garysull@windows.microsoft.com; cabo@tzi.org; jo@netlab.hut.fi; Oren Kudovitzky; Shahaf Rozanski Subject: RE: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism Osher, 1. If the answerer supports QCIF=2 in sendrecv, then this is the common mode. It is implied that the offerer can receive QCIF=2 even if it will not send the re-invite with QCIF=2. The offerer may send the re-invite to fix the mode so that the answerer will not send him CIF. 2. On the Custom - the implied supported resolution is the closest lowest defined resolution (QCIF, CIF,....) Roni Even ________________________________ From: Osher Hmelnizky [mailto:Osher.Hmelnizky@audiocodes.com] Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:04 PM To: avt mailing list Cc: Even, Roni; Stephan.Wenger@nokia.col1 {mso-level-tab-stop:.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l1:level2 {mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l1:level3 {mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l1:level4 {mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l1:level5 {mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l1:level6 {mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l1:level7 {mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l1:level8 {mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l1:level9 {mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in; mso-level-number-position:left; text-indent:-.25in;} @list l2 {mso-list-id:1413742880; mso-list-type:hybrid; mso-list-template-ids:-1136870578 -491326974 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715 67698703 67698713 67698715;} @list l2:level1 {mso-level-tab-stop:.65in; mso-level-number-position:left; margin-left:.65in; text-indent:-.25in;} ol {margin-bottom:0in;} ul {margin-bottom:0in;} --> </style> <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" /> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" /> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--> </head> <body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple> <div class=Section1> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#3366ff" face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#3366FF'>Hi Roni, another question is regarding RFC3016 for MPEG4. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color="#3366ff" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#3366FF'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color="#3366ff" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#3366FF'>Is specific profile-level-id requires to support all lower profile-level-ids?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color="#3366ff" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#3366FF'>If we receive an offer of specific profile-level-id, but we support a larger profile-level-id, can we assume that we also support lower profile-level-ids?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 color="#3366ff" face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt;color:#3366FF'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#3366ff" face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#3366FF'>Regards<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#3366ff" face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#3366FF'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color="#3366ff" face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:#3366FF'>Osher<o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size: 10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p> <div> <div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'> <hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1> </span></font></div> <p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt; font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> Even, Roni [mailto:<st1:PersonName w:st="on">roni.even@polycom.co.il</st1:PersonName>] <br> <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:13 PM<br> <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Osher Hmelnizky</st1:Persom; garysull@windows.microsoft.com; cabo@tzi.org; jo@netlab.hut.fi; Oren Kudovitzky; Shahaf Rozanski; Osher Hmelnizky Subject: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-bis-09.txt Offer/Answer Mechanism Hi, According to the draft : " A system that declares support of a specific MPI for one of the resolutions SHALL also implicitly support a lower resolution with the same MPI." If the Answering side supports lower resolution is the following example is allowed? For example, if we send an SDP offer: m=video 6002 RTP/AVP 96 a=rtpmap:96 H263-1998/90000 a=fmtp:96 CIF=2 a=sendrecv It means that we want to receive CIF with MPI = 2. If we receive the following answer: m=video 6002 RTP/AVP 96 a=rtpmap:96 H263-1998/90000 a=fmtp:96 QCIF=2 a=sendrecv According to H.263 draft: If we receive an offer with a specific MPI for one of the resolutions, it means that the remote UA also supports a lower resolution with the same MPI. Can we negotiate although the parties support different resolutions? Are these scenarios valid? What about CUSTOM? How should we negotiate if the parties don't support the same resolution? Kind regards Osher
_______________________________________________ Audio/Video Transport Working Group avt@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt
- [AVT] RE: Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc24… Osher Hmelnizky
- [AVT] Question regarding draft-ietf-avt-rfc2429-b… Osher Hmelnizky