Re: [rtcweb] Signalling, SDP, and the way we think about interconnecting RTCWEB applications

Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk> Sat, 15 October 2011 14:10 UTC

Return-Path: <neils@vipadia.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 2F7C821F84A9 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 VyeJAbGXEMlg for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:10:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iy0-f172.google.com (mail-iy0-f172.google.com [209.85.210.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1023621F84A8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iabn5 with SMTP id n5so4070750iab.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.24.96 with SMTP id u32mr5485572ibb.61.1318687834031; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:10:34 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: neils@vipadia.com
Received: by 10.231.200.146 with HTTP; Sat, 15 Oct 2011 07:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E998E27.9080104@alvestrand.no>
References: <AAE428925197FE46A5F94ED6643478FEA925614C6A@HE111644.EMEA1.CDS.T-INTERNAL.COM> <CALiegfkw=aA-4NrAG3U03suUYHAzQHyAWnNEbpRHcjd5xr3_KQ@mail.gmail.com> <ABB0E87F-DEEF-4386-A718-D48E00F5961A@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfnHuYJnX3rnuDGbZPB4NvK=dCTJ=iLcu+zguP5wo_uPqQ@mail.gmail.com> <92A553E5-107A-4987-A5F5-1F56FB5A7800@acmepacket.com> <CALiegfn6nv1D2HjeMo-jPDh9Acph7JdH1DT1xZXUtHqzqxya3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMB3p1u7hRX_vO1bQbQ2z-V+0rLiJmi+ZqkEA0mqc66keQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=26_6r_YjBCmO+6_GnrAzi=KcLoPFqUi-y1E8m_gWreQ@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDsWyKdvXSRMV0OGEeEYbSENFHSOovNJDUGK30N_pGrnQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABRok6nsVH5tYfwFqQpmjF=Kj-wZQDB9XUX8oOee8r3wr51fKA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAJUQMg79h1=V4m9agq9CcEmFknTaaXrgUz9qtq9EL-0_nChiQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E996E80.6070500@alvestrand.no> <CABRok6k=8wa_K7X+MHwaii+6ANfTquLqauMKgm7KP82wf6pKyA@mail.gmail.com> <4E998E27.9080104@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 15:10:33 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9AeQDpW_jwjjjnhsPoqnyBLzNXo
Message-ID: <CABRok6k0bGwJp7PDJzewNZ0JisQni7eZcidNM3QjgA0Q-AcqjQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Neil Stratford <neils@belltower.co.uk>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001517741428eac4c204af56eff4
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Signalling, SDP, and the way we think about interconnecting RTCWEB applications
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: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 14:10:45 -0000

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:

> **
> On 10/15/2011 02:08 PM, Neil Stratford wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:
>
>>
>>>  Remember that:
>> a) codecs are (currently) part of the platform, not of the application.
>> b) one of our aims for negotiation is that if application X is deployed in
>> browsers A and B, and both browser A and B support a "best codec" W that was
>> created *after* X was last updated, then the codec W should be used.
>>
>> Given the last point - the app *cannot* "implicitly" what codec will be
>> used. And given that it doesn't know the codec, it can't know the parameters
>> either.
>>
>> (that said... I'm all in favour of fewer parameters. The RTP format for
>> VP8 that we're in the process of finishing has zero parameters. I hope it
>> will remain that way.
>
>
>  Can we work around this issue by delegating parameter negotiation to the
> codec itself? Each codec in the codec capability list could present (at a
> minimum) it's name, priority and a codec specific parameter negotiation
> function. We can then delegate the complicated codec specific details (when
> necessary) without needing any advance knowledge in the javascript
> application. We would need to standardise the parameter lists such that
> different codec implementations can interop, but that is the same with SDP.
>
> Yes, maybe we could do that. But would it make a difference?
>
> SDP is (among other things) exactly such a parameter list standardisation,
> each and every codec deployed with RTP tends to publish a specification on
> how to encode those parameter lists in SDP, and each and every video engine
> implementing those codecs tends to have code in it that parses that SDP and
> does the negotiation on that basis.
>
> Are we reinventing another encoding format for SDP again?
>

I guess there are a couple of points here:

1. Yes, we are re-inventing SDP, but at a lower level, so we leave it up to
the developer to use SDP, or something else if they prefer.

2. I fully support that we need to interop with SIP, and that we should make
that a simple thing to do. However, I also think that rtcweb will rapidly
become the dominant RTC platform due to the pervasiveness of browsers. Codec
developers will be targeting rtcweb as a primary platform, especially if we
make it easy to download and deploy new codecs.

Neil