[rtcweb] 答复: 答复: Some thoughts on optional audio codecs

"Lijing (Jessie, Technology Introduction & Standard and Patent Dept)" <lijing80@huawei.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 03:42 UTC

Return-Path: <lijing80@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9899421F9E6A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.849
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.849 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-4.299, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ABSRvq17uKR7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:42:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA00F21F9D17 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:42:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AVG99590; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:42:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML404-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 04:41:31 +0100
Received: from SZXEML402-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.32) by lhreml404-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.218) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.7; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 04:42:20 +0100
Received: from szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com ([169.254.8.128]) by szxeml402-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.007; Mon, 22 Jul 2013 11:42:17 +0800
From: "Lijing (Jessie, Technology Introduction & Standard and Patent Dept)" <lijing80@huawei.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Thread-Topic: =?gb2312?B?W3J0Y3dlYl0gtPC4tDogU29tZSB0aG91Z2h0cyBvbiBvcHRpb25hbCBhdWRp?= =?gb2312?Q?o_codecs?=
Thread-Index: Ac6BN11IugiIgzm2TXug3PomYB8N3AFQBe5g//+DcQD//3HGgA==
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:42:17 +0000
Message-ID: <A3045C90BB645147BC99159AA47ABAC7419F6161@szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DEE3029@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <A3045C90BB645147BC99159AA47ABAC7419F610E@szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CABcZeBNrVByn0fnYB_CEgZ9eFMX+nF8Rmmn3yLm-VZET9sBhcA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNrVByn0fnYB_CEgZ9eFMX+nF8Rmmn3yLm-VZET9sBhcA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.66.171.171]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_A3045C90BB645147BC99159AA47ABAC7419F6161szxeml558mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: [rtcweb] =?gb2312?b?tPC4tDogILTwuLQ6IFNvbWUgdGhvdWdodHMgb24gb3B0?= =?gb2312?b?aW9uYWwgYXVkaW8gY29kZWNz?=
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:42:33 -0000

Sorry,I’ve confused two concepts. What I want to express is that,
Firstly, the browser may be able to make use of “native” codec APIs of the “hard” device(e.g. mobile phone), and include the “native” codecs in the SDP O/A messages.
In addition, for application flexibility, the browser should provide codec capability APIs to developers. Then,  the developers can choose proper codecs according to the specific scenario.

So there should be two APIs. The first is provide by the device and used by the browser. The second is provided by the browser and used by the developer.

Best Regards,
Lijing


发件人: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com]
发送时间: 2013年7月22日 9:39
收件人: Lijing (Jessie, Technology Introduction & Standard and Patent Dept)
抄送: Bo Burman; rtcweb@ietf.org
主题: Re: [rtcweb] 答复: Some thoughts on optional audio codecs

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Lijing (Jessie, Technology Introduction & Standard and Patent Dept) <lijing80@huawei.com<mailto:lijing80@huawei.com>> wrote:
I fully agree with the idea to " use existing "native" codecs ".

In addition, from a web developer's perspective, in order to make use of the "native" codecs, the browser should provide codec APIs to open the local codec capabilities of the device to applications and developers. It really make sense.

I don't understand what this means.

-Ekr