IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability - what have we learned?

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 30 December 2013 15:44 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 BCCB01AE4F7 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 07:44:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.037
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.037 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 72qgV8YU9glz for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 07:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc2-s8.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc2-s8.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.83]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC111AE4F5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 07:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU181-W42 ([65.55.111.72]) by blu0-omc2-s8.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 30 Dec 2013 07:44:35 -0800
X-TMN: [DtOaNxjcoT5MEjwp9LmLlG6u4KPS09EY]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU181-W42BC891FC164177BD0D89493CE0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_7eb5f7d8-842c-4877-9032-dfaa816ec502_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Colin Perkins <csp@csperkins.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 07:44:35 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <ADA2658E-00AD-4086-8DBC-D69116763D6E@csperkins.org>
References: <52AE9129.8090702@bbs.darktech.org>, <CABcZeBPOxqa2YQxOrTp9sVF-tQrpg-Kn=CbazBXOx_9dajhUZA@mail.gmail.com>, <52AE9E0C.9060707@bbs.darktech.org> <20131216170820.GD82971@verdi>, <20131220113631.GA70585@verdi> <52B47196.6060400@bbs.darktech.org>, <D5B39658-5766-4C5B-9090-8E8EDC4BCFA6@apple.com>, <BLU403-EAS179850B162A879E8A7BC47793C70@phx.gbl>, <20131221231651.GX3245@audi.shelbyville.oz>, <BLU405-EAS3161C2664A35035737B2A0093C70@phx.gbl>, <20131222000435.GY3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <BLU169-W89BB21BD97352E6D90939793C60@phx.gbl>, <ADA2658E-00AD-4086-8DBC-D69116763D6E@csperkins.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Dec 2013 15:44:35.0605 (UTC) FILETIME=[0A6A4450:01CF0576]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Interoperability - what have we learned?
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: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:44:42 -0000

Colin said: 
As far I was aware, those issues have been addressed. If there's anything still outstanding, can you please explain your concerns? There are open issues with the RTP usage draft, but I don't recall any remaining about feedback messages or bandwidth estimation.
[BA]  The RTP usage document needs to align with the feedback messages utilized by modern video codecs. 
draft-ietf-payload-vp8 Section 5 refers to the RPSI and SLI feedback messages. draft-ietf-payload-rtp-h265 Section 8 refers to the RPSI and (newly defined) SPLI messages. 
And yet draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage Section 5.1.3 indicates that support for SLI is OPTIONAL while Section 5.1.4 indicates that support for RPSI is OPTIONAL.  
This doesn't seem right.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email