Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Tue, 07 August 2012 01:48 UTC
Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 B47E711E80E9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.45
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.45 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 FtnK92QLmdo5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 176E911E809C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 6 Aug 2012 18:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-173-49-141-60.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([173.49.141.60] helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1SyYtx-0007fN-B3 for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 06 Aug 2012 20:48:05 -0500
Message-ID: <50207367.9030605@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 21:46:15 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <53223349-A31F-4381-899F-82E29B0A0B6C@cisco.com> <CACHLvecT1AgJRo=xM5AH-fGZn+iYrtHqWk7Eym8QJn9U7YGcsg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPk5xQv_ZNqo66LfApshWtRrvXuBMscnp3+kY_GMiibgD1BCqw@mail.gmail.com> <AEF5DA45-0307-4170-A8B4-BAE6B25248C8@cisco.com>, <CAOJ7v-093zyfumK_z5dGhr8msNatfBABk6wD=g80GH2LG4055Q@mail.gmail.com> <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4840E4C90A9@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4840E4C90A9@TK5EX14MBXC273.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are doing no signs of offering real world interoperability
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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 01:48:06 -0000
On 8/6/2012 5:51 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote: > In addition to these differences that fall out of not baking in the > full ICE and SDP O/A state machines, our proposal provides several > other capabilities, including hooks that allow a developer to > customize their application's response to changing network > conditions... an area which is currently completely unaddressed in the > current WebRTC draft. We've said repeatedly that we need such capability, and I have a proposed JS API for just that: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861 The other side of this is in the hands of the Media Capture Task Force, where we've been discussing the best way to modify a MediaStream/Track after they're created. There are two rough proposals, one to re-use the constraints API for getUserMedia(), and the other I've proposed (verbally only so far, no draft API) uses events and lets them "bubble up" the chain of MediaStreams/Tracks from a consumer to a source (which could be a remote source, and the application could signal that request (such as a resolution or frame-rate change) across to the remote source of the stream. This is relevant even without a remote connection. > I wouldn't be surprised if the existing use-case document(s) is (are) > inadequate to describe situations where, for instance, a developer > might wish to prioritize video quality over frame rate, or drop video > in order to continue audio, but that just means that we all need to > provide more input on those documents as well. Matthew Kaufman I think most of those concerns are covered in what I describe above. (For example, the application could override the automatic allocation of bits and close a video stream, change the resolution, etc.) I'd love to your input on these proposals, API suggestions, alternatives, etc! I'm glad you're willing to help flesh out them out and bring them to completion, and get them into the spec drafts ASAP. -- Randell Jesup randell-ietf@jesup.org
- [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we are… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Luca De Cicco
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Rohit Puri
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Rohit Puri
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Kevin P. Fleming
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Alexey Aylarov
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Lorenzo Miniero
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Jim Barnett
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Anant Narayanan
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Microsoft tells W3C and IETF what we… Tim Panton