Re: [rtcweb] Offer/answer for heterogeneous encode/decode

I am new to rtcweb community. Was there any proposal on making both Vp8 and
H264 decoders MTI in webrtc, but VP8 or H264 encoder to be optional ? Does
this offer a better option for the marketplace, while allowing
interoperability.

-Derek

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Derek Pang <dcpang@highfive.com> wrote:

> I am new to rtcweb community. Was there any proposal on making both Vp8
> and H264 decoders MTI in webrtc, but VP8 or H264 encoder to be optional ?
> Does this offer a better option for the marketplace, while allowing
> interoperability.
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:
>
>> On 11/23/2013 01:20 AM, Paul Giralt (pgiralt) wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 22, 2013, at 7:06 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 22 November 2013 15:44, Paul Giralt (pgiralt) <pgiralt@cisco.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> While you’re right that it would work for this scenario, my point was
>>>>> really
>>>>> that Offer/Answer is not really asymmetric as implied earlier. Take for
>>>>> example the hypothetical case where you are only able to decode VP8
>>>>> but only
>>>>> able to encode H.264. If I offer VP8 as my only codec (because it’s
>>>>> the only
>>>>> thing I’m able to decode therefore I never want anyone to send me
>>>>> anything
>>>>> other than VP8) I cannot send H.264 in the offer because that implies
>>>>> I’m
>>>>> able to decode it. The other side then wants to say it can only receive
>>>>> H.264 so it would have to send back an answer with only H.264. I guess
>>>>> there’s nothing really inherently stopping you from doing this because
>>>>> as
>>>>> far as I can tell, 3264 only says the answer has to be a subset of the
>>>>> offer
>>>>> for multicast streams, however how would the answering side know that
>>>>> the
>>>>> offering side is even capable to receiving H.264? Perhaps Offer/Answer
>>>>> can
>>>>> technically be asymmetric, but it doesn’t seem practical to use it
>>>>> this way
>>>>> because you cannot really indicate your send and receive capabilities
>>>>> independent of each other.
>>>>>
>>>> Judicious application of a=sendonly or a=recvonly avoids this issue.
>>>> If you want to send H.264, try a=sendonly on a line with H.264.  If
>>>> you want to receive VP8, try a=recvonly on a line with VP8.
>>>>
>>> I gave this as an example of a possible way to do it, but that means you
>>> need two separate m= lines - one for send and one for receive. Seems
>>> strange to do this for something that you really want to be a single
>>> bi-directional stream.
>>>
>>
>> An application that can't talk to itself is kind of bizarre too.
>>
>> I think this is a corner case.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
>