Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)

Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Wed, 05 October 2011 12:48 UTC

Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.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 B205321F8D3D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.328
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.328 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.029, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 s3KV3LAjlrdG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net [193.180.251.57]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E170C21F8C36 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 05:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-10-4e8c52dfa1ef
Received: from esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 7B.68.20773.FD25C8E4; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:51:43 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [150.132.141.51] (153.88.115.8) by esessmw0247.eemea.ericsson.se (153.88.115.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.3.137.0; Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:51:32 +0200
Message-ID: <4E8C52D3.70007@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 14:51:31 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Stefan_H=E5kansson_LK?= <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CA+9kkMBi9BzDu=WOq3RG-o5nbfnUTftDg3LRBU3DFh=Kc4W5ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmYgQ+yb=pDp1J2_PVa1SkxTOuaUCM02Vt6-iGabwif1g@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMCUTiPO3eASjn0mbRA9YCF6TMmGGOjQ4NkVkvzVMN39Gg@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfnx=qoS_pqyC45WVEYEFqj-3eP9g_kyhAUaOO6He_UEfw@mail.gmail.com> <91623260-6A12-4737-8BA9-4D6B60FCD389@phonefromhere.com>
In-Reply-To: <91623260-6A12-4737-8BA9-4D6B60FCD389@phonefromhere.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Making progress on the signaling discussion (NB: Action items enclosed!)
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: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:48:36 -0000

On 2011-10-05 12:03, Tim Panton wrote:
> It seems to me that by calling WebRTC.SDP.answerFor() - getting the
> native code
> to do the 'compatibility matching' you've lost quite a lot of influence
> over the selection process.
> Lets say this is a conference app on an android phone - and lets say
> that the phone supports
> h 261, h263 and h264 but only has hardware accel for h264....

To me it seems that the browser (at least the one integrated by the 
device manufacturer) has a much greater chance of knowing what codecs 
are HW accelerated than the application - or do you expect a large 
database where device, version, OS-version, browser, browser version 
etc. is stored?

My preference would rather be that the app hints (as Tim proposed in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Oct/0004.html>), 
the browser proposes (by some kind of offer where the codecs are listed 
in preference order). If the offers are available to the application 
(for transport to the other end) it can override it there are objections.

Stefan