[MMUSIC] Wisdom sought: Prioritization of codecs

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 15 November 2012 08:47 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523A121F87E7 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:47:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.084
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.514, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kbSceFT3cLKk for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:47:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B03021F87DB for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 00:47:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9028939E151 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:47:29 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TXntSjWfrESk for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:47:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:f1a7:8f70:3a07:f9d9] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:de0a:27:f1a7:8f70:3a07:f9d9]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FD2739E020 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:47:28 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <50A4AC20.5030306@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:47:28 +0100
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------000700080305030900070404"
Subject: [MMUSIC] Wisdom sought: Prioritization of codecs
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 15 Nov 2012 08:47:33 -0000

I've been searching RFC 4566 (SDP) for this info, but came up blank....

in an M-line, we typically have

m=video blabla 111 112 113
a=rtpmap:111 ....
a=rtpmap:112 ...
a=rtpmap:113 ....

Section 5.14 says this:

       If the <proto> sub-field is "RTP/AVP" or "RTP/SAVP" the <fmt>
       sub-fields contain RTP payload type numbers.  When a list of
       payload type numbers is given, this implies that all of these
       payload formats MAY be used in the session, but the first of these
       formats SHOULD be used as the default format for the session.

Now, the questions...

1) In offer/answer, does this sequence in an offer mean that the offerer 
prefers that the answerer use codec 111, if supported?

2) in offer/answer, does this sequence in an answer mean that the 
answerer prefers that the offerer use codec 111?

3) is there any preference expressed between codec 112 and codec 113?

4) Should the sequence of a=rtpmap: lines be completely ignored, or does 
it matter?

I'm trying to fix a bug, and want to make sure I fix it according to spec.

                Harald