Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-video Section 4.2 (H.264)
Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> Wed, 22 October 2014 12:17 UTC
Return-Path: <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.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 9EED91A9041 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 05:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Ojh6XuuL0h9R for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 05:17:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2EA81A8F49 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 05:17:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-f791c6d00000617b-8e-5447a05688e7
Received: from ESESSHC016.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sesbmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 64.26.24955.650A7445; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:17:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.163]) by ESESSHC016.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.66]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:17:26 +0200
From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-video Section 4.2 (H.264)
Thread-Index: AQHP5zkt7lQPDj5kwUaiHjUMtDl85Q==
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:17:24 +0000
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1D0AA814@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CAOW+2du1w78bSzxhgjf3cbmSkN7Fh22PN_xBK7DDD8xg1UOGFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.146]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7YAvcQg95NphYb9v1ntlj7r53d gclj56y77B5LlvxkCmCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4MpoaT7EXPCIpaK3YS5zA+N75i5GTg4JAROJ eXOXskHYYhIX7q0Hsrk4hASOMkpM3fqOFcJZwiixZM0tRpAqNoFAia37FoB1iAgESbR1LQSL Cwv4SuzfdpYJIh4g0fOoH8rWk7h/5xGYzSKgKtG+9wLYZl6g+jut78HiQkD1P/Z9A7MZga74 fmoNmM0sIC5x68l8JojrBCSW7DkPdbWoxMvH/1ghbCWJHxsusUDU60ncmDqFDcLWlli28DXU LkGJkzOfsExgFJmFZOwsJC2zkLTMQtKygJFlFaNocWpxUm66kbFealFmcnFxfp5eXmrJJkZg RBzc8lt1B+PlN46HGAU4GJV4eBfwu4cIsSaWFVfmHmKU5mBREuddeG5esJBAemJJanZqakFq UXxRaU5q8SFGJg5OqQbGuC0qsqG7zm08MuOnBP9RLQmfLMvLmjb3JkWfqjGevfjz3l2Bsw0e LF3Vanztqr7IUp8QaWYDjdyXKZqVqjsFHne72aow1ztt9Lz4eGlavKbyTNaldj9mWHX+YTC7 HXu7RXl/2vOfbC9mahV/arNe02gfNn9XamNw2Re5d4pX/ssvFO+zbctWYinOSDTUYi4qTgQA rsdY42kCAAA=
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/U-9_cYuEEO53HG6LP7H-h4wo8L0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-video Section 4.2 (H.264)
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, 22 Oct 2014 12:17:30 -0000
On 14/10/14 00:58, Bernard Aboba wrote: > This section needs more work. Aside from requiring support for > packetization mode 1, we could use additional text on robustness. > > Could aspects of existing H.264 robustness recommendations (such 3GPP > S4-140961, designed for Video over LTE) could be incorporated? You mean the part saying more or less: * NACK messages mean lost frames * PLI must be supported * FIR must be supported To me that would make sense. But should it go into section 4.2 or section 5? Stefan
- [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-video Sect… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-video … Stefan Håkansson LK