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

Derek Pang <dcpang@highfive.com> Tue, 26 November 2013 22:11 UTC

Return-Path: <dcpang@highfive.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32DB11ADF64 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:11:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.378
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.378 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 pKzcJM5IML8z for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-f50.google.com (mail-bk0-f50.google.com [209.85.214.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E50F1ADF7F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:11:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f50.google.com with SMTP id e11so2807336bkh.23 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:11:16 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=o8+WIl+H5Ia2IB3V8fSB7SJVBPbNGdfFe90ZfC4o1kw=; b=Ho3smGneBEhIaRp1FSO3awNK6gVu+Ly7ulP6Wy1ns8aAumjOjAh7H9mbSES3eJq+J3 LluLY8Bm7j5T19Ke4FpCO3hSIh71XndOele/61x87vwNVs0eQmFTe70ccfB2iaoG0txZ 64f4Lmo41hZWIG4RAm+ORY7ZZVEkCzE/ZFSphpaENbebz0Bqjn3GcyC4zjmVMqECeKzo os/EG4LBaMfIohWnDh9VaucUEdt7owxGqF+X3AYf7SAAQOoJzlNozoy7fiYIwNQwr+pS 3b7lvHvUksGhomAHLYSOFw3oidkYSdcJZ0RTP/Kn2hjHiss6U14mWMM0fviv5xJDRn6d kglw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlWfLhdCXo3nC4dshtTDVAQ3ZlQhcA14IzlpdvEa7Bse17VvzFTcaNEhZCdatbuwHBlGeO1
X-Received: by 10.205.78.131 with SMTP id zm3mr1230264bkb.63.1385503876356; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:11:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.162.78 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:10:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKE_3BVx9C0MC1sTAo9PNWk+vDWfqF_9fw-nP=8hU8p+Eugz3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-2NSo7_KgARkYMDO6bca7msARL83d9gN3570F6sHoCJ9g@mail.gmail.com> <59A91D84-3D29-47C4-8688-CB60844B15D3@cisco.com> <CABkgnnVu8p9nTaWhQYy8GdXkpa6_GGvZwbv8i=kistG5SnskXg@mail.gmail.com> <24B2A6DE-958C-445C-BE77-8BD1661DC33D@cisco.com> <52922BA1.6070805@alvestrand.no> <CAKE_3BVx9C0MC1sTAo9PNWk+vDWfqF_9fw-nP=8hU8p+Eugz3w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Derek Pang <dcpang@highfive.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:10:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKE_3BVr3Q67d2FbBxfCRrQqurjfZwDrdTpes-_eL_CjNQi97w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d04103ad162fd5f04ec1bc25c
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:04:03 -0800
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Offer/answer for heterogeneous encode/decode
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 22:11:24 -0000

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;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
>>
>
>