IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from the SDP loudness (Re: Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP)

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Sun, 10 March 2013 05:02 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 B1EB721F86CE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 21:02:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.056
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.056 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.746, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 CIhhPtL+0233 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 21:02:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ve0-f175.google.com (mail-ve0-f175.google.com [209.85.128.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D02A321F86C9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 21:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ve0-f175.google.com with SMTP id cy12so2033567veb.20 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:02:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=vhCTJxrxqp0DrDNb1txdNHUgfF7q2twgP+sF+bylGH8=; b=k/WSIFGmObxXY29cFykMPNrWKHoUzB4l+D0wC7PjFq1eOn/ty2T2QsbBcr1W2IpjBy OJRiBAhWguupvnaISWiIESg9xeeQFHsSrbHxy0YXSyNWasQEglZQeiWmeSafc2ynWCo/ e1u8DyHhCDG6p8+ja9nz7HA8E+roSeqpCphNWyCvH2ZzXRKJ29Xm072AoyRbuL7D+4Ql ZcG5Mfh4NAu4d9zGJTJqS6W23PsWxO4CZ15TfXCIz9brg4yfRl2kLS6aRcpB2uxuSTYR XwPhlHAYFe6POZ97fRZnrQgh1bFwfu+sSF6tvirmHwIZNZDEyNP8+T6N48weifXCGZmK zazw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=vhCTJxrxqp0DrDNb1txdNHUgfF7q2twgP+sF+bylGH8=; b=AmfTsmn/qUab3COtGEeEdGLk1wKlnPYVlrUVaoKhNHdSi8qS8aqqhSnYwZTq5Z2/PK gd9BFRao6P9lj7UWVUUEkSUWaQe0LzB5Kt0wXVkkh+jorZfVYcB3ljSRtxF6pr3bQ8NB uoYbHps0Ygpuz8tu52Wi1UqwOFPHxhkXneHllYBrj36ad1kTMZ3tKZPPZLpr3IC3bhde FT4W2YyqZUrTf652o9iZNreVb8Dqfauz1prM3daOYk1jf2vxBpRLpLro/feYg74I9pW5 BHUYkYchwAus0AK1i1idUJvdpcCq7CXn5kF2C2MMPmReUYJAotDE4BaxMUBgeHZg3X9z JM3Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.58.137.34 with SMTP id qf2mr3226940veb.25.1362891732198; Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:02:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.49.102 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 21:02:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.58.49.102 with HTTP; Sat, 9 Mar 2013 21:02:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <513B5D98.2070601@alvestrand.no>
References: <CD5D3F35.B22B%robin@hookflash.com> <B9549E2E-6E68-4F34-A9C0-1F050285A70A@acmepacket.com> <CABkgnnXCio-Dw7dN5yfSjeRf3wG2oWow_M2mU-Y49TedSAPQmg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN6CFTix3W9qWgC1T0O36t4SajL3hMXaHOdkat-p5TY_xA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMLdEkFZq5rMOY0texKb4DtFQ-O86JkC17kJihxv6Dj8w@mail.gmail.com> <CAHBDyN6mM-rT315uSbeTQfKuCiVwsEDhi7Q6DEbt8pjiJ_4i6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp8n2nz=NZb=UaevUSS7GRSBpvn-v9_=QHz6iddnZzyx5-TSQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUETwfY7ZvaXO_1Bq8gs8pOTgALQE8FiimrUX7sfuEpDsw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHp8n2kcEHcz11LOYYMZ3-nv2PYQKu=z6M=dsQ_H5JuR8ND7hQ@mail.gmail.com> <513B5D98.2070601@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 21:02:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEL_5BjWVaP4Fu7sY+P7kj1GVz3q3_z=wUtgyzMUnud2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0129546690b9be04d78af5f6"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlGvcPlcEYRok29IzfkW/2+tWeGZNZxwQROxqeS463pTMXToY8zoXqG8R0GM/iV7wXuCeS7S68axX3g52M+QbgOrhSVrTSgTNF4ejIGVlPe3Qg02R955vtafX3K3D+It2/KhUJ3MuWwrEJEfyTu5ChTU9AcobZ61Y+10PmXfkG8C4s1f8ikEmAGBLLq6ZMizKF/IjiU
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Separating stream manipulation from the SDP loudness (Re: Proposed Plan for Usage of SDP and RTP)
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: Sun, 10 Mar 2013 05:02:13 -0000

There's a difference between the resolution that you open the camera at and
the resolution you send over the network at.  Does the current constraints
API let you capture at one resolution and send at another?  Also, does it
let you change the send resolution on the fly?

These are important controls that, as far as I know, are not currently
supplied to the application.  They could potentially be supplied by SDP,
new methods, or as you suggest, perhaps even as some kind of constraint.
But I don't think they are currently provided.
On Mar 9, 2013 7:54 PM, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> As usual, I'm trying to use subject line change in order to achieve some
> separation of concerns...
>
> On 03/07/2013 10:22 PM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>> Agreed, but it's also not sufficient. SDP is not "programmer friendly"
>> enough because it has too many details that are protocol-details only and
>> it's too hard to see the semantic bits in SDP and ignore the rest.
>>
>> For example: the programmer wants to say - I want to get this video
>> resolution, this audio bitrate & channels, I want to use this camera and
>> this microphone for this call. Having to manipulate SDP directly for this
>> is a programmer's nightmare.
>>
>
> I think we've been over exactly those pieces, and our current proposed
> solution is called the Media Stream API and the constraints mechanism - and
> they have exactly nothing to do with SDP, or even with PeerConnection.
>
> I don't think we've got it to be "unproblematic" yet, but also, I don't
> think SDP, JSON or even the offer-answer model is either the problem or the
> solution on this set of functionalities.
>
> Or did I misunderstand something basic?
>
>                Harald
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email