Re: [MMUSIC] Simulcast worries: What bitrate? (from the WEBRTC list)

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 22 October 2015 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E551A1A8A for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:56:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 I9GmDTMTcXi7 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:56:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E29A61A1A55 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:56:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local (99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id t9MEuctv050886 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:56:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-145-110.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.145.110] claimed to be Orochi.local
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <56279638.9030007@alvestrand.no>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <5628F926.7060304@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 09:56:38 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56279638.9030007@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/jXPuwBX1vrvF3NgLmpK7G_Vtey0>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Simulcast worries: What bitrate? (from the WEBRTC list)
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:56:44 -0000

On 10/21/15 08:42, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> I'd be happier if we could say "this is the same bitrate as b=TEAS" or
> something like that - if an implementation has to stick to multiple
> definitions of bitrate for the same media flow, which will happen with
> a=rid .. max-br and b= in the same message, it would be nice to be able
> to use the same counters.

I'm good either way. We can keep this as-is, or add a reference to 
RFC3890. Anyone want to speak for or against moving over to the RFC3890 
definition of bandwidth?

/a