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

Derek Pang <dcpang@highfive.com> Wed, 27 November 2013 01:44 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 9755D1AE03D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:44:25 -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 x9gDYCnyok1Y for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:44:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com (mail-bk0-f41.google.com [209.85.214.41]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAA6F1ADF7F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:44:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id v15so2981751bkz.28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:44:21 -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=a7MBBXEbB80WV2kmChg2qhIhPx8D8HSb61pMXH9Dnkc=; b=M/TFDDf6jFixUXnuD81rwr5GEqAQbnWTCpp2vmR2HTZbDh79IrnAG08wEESxj6y3g+ jF28bt7K1bz7KKn2taJFyqAPcvSy7c6eHn55O8Id1kk7bq+lPelE0yu9ADdHdv/dhybe HDhDjz3fSavRQ+WKW2781ydYgY9DzxeG1Xw7oFRQEgyDdXRjr+CvtS2pjQFz9+hD6TWa E+CQeEHrd/xlylMOQVkQn4ivbLUimxbRe5dn2RbnAoJO6ISiMi0BrUdjbvT36k+KbzFH Wc1CH+AXWOEkzUHIYNUPcV3oILBU6pV68s0ExpvOMGXttG0oP2qwRQAfeK3aH9/Xf3Dh Qoqw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmdT1Zc5g2U+ZJQfZ1KJrs+pSHm9r/K+pzdJIL/niXpCRdBx7t696yxREkTQ2VBIsMzAIaE
X-Received: by 10.204.106.139 with SMTP id x11mr28163336bko.7.1385516661606; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:44:21 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.204.162.78 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:44:01 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <5295273C.1070602@alvestrand.no>
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> <5295273C.1070602@alvestrand.no>
From: Derek Pang <dcpang@highfive.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 17:44:01 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKE_3BUVPUJLdPbpU8FyWj8WBb6dcxMKmHDFKpKBJFg8w3e6TA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11333cc47277b404ec1ebc92
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 00:34:25 -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: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 01:44:25 -0000

Harald,

Thank you for your patience and the pointer.

Much appreciated,
Derek


On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote;wrote:

>  On 11/26/2013 11:07 PM, Derek Pang 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.
>
>
> I appreciate that the amount of reading you have to do in order to catch
> up with the archives is enormous, but it is definitely a good thing to do
> at this juncture.
>
> This is alternative 12 on http://tools.ietf.org/wg/rtcweb/trac/wiki,
> where the current alternatives that the chairs are considering proposing a
> vote to choose between have been listed.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
>