IETF Logo Mail Archive

[rtcweb] resolutions in draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01

"Roni Even" <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com> Thu, 17 November 2011 03:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ron.even.tlv@gmail.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 9432A1F0CC1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:21:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 lL6Qq9UDgaEC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f172.google.com (mail-gx0-f172.google.com [209.85.161.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CBF11F0CBB for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ggnr5 with SMTP id r5so571233ggn.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:21:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-mailer :thread-index:content-language; bh=Olcd/FaBJdqxI9NBDDCGpIGPMd92GJ5zWSdO6v/rOUY=; b=Ut3ngGZhFNKigMgv0BGN6uCaABLcp4dIkmQGkpeqg1SEOVQvreeMJMveC1y65M+sg2 ft58yeB9823yJZmrj8IETRTfxJQUChy+vxriHgP82o5vjRbU2V354nBAXpPFABkEcAj4 TEFAvtWbQ8b4OTOtqnaGJ1X/M5amXV2xMqkPk=
Received: by 10.101.47.7 with SMTP id z7mr1771545anj.6.1321500114152; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:21:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from windows8d787f9 (dhcp-17b3.meeting.ietf.org. [130.129.23.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 22sm92072981anp.12.2011.11.16.19.21.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 16 Nov 2011 19:21:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Roni Even <ron.even.tlv@gmail.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 05:19:13 +0200
Message-ID: <4ec47dd1.1610640a.2346.ffffcfdb@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_01EF_01CCA4E8.74036810"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Acyk163qmvpjuJNXRCCWsm8A4GfZaw==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: [rtcweb] resolutions in draft-cbran-rtcweb-codec-01
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: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:21:55 -0000

Hi,

The text in the draft on video codec is

 

o  MUST support a minimum resolution of 320X240

 

o  SHOULD support resolutions of 1280x720, 720x480, 1024x768,

      800x600, 640x480, 640 x 360 , 320x240

 

I propose adding 1920 x 1080 to the SHOULD.  This resolution are used by
video conferencing systems

 

 

I also assume that there will be a way to negotiate the video parameters (no
issue if we use offer/ answer RFC 3264)

 

Roni Even

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email