IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec

Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com> Wed, 10 December 2014 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <aallen@blackberry.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 C20E21A0105 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:15:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 vUpGU-h3gYDZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-p02.blackberry.com (smtp-p02.blackberry.com [208.65.78.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD001A001B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 15:15:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xct102cnc.rim.net ([10.65.161.202]) by mhs215cnc.rim.net with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 10 Dec 2014 18:15:13 -0500
Received: from XCT114CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.214) by XCT102CNC.rim.net (10.65.161.202) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.210.2; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:15:13 -0500
Received: from XMB122CNC.rim.net ([fe80::28c6:fa1c:91c6:2e23]) by XCT114CNC.rim.net ([::1]) with mapi id 14.03.0210.002; Wed, 10 Dec 2014 18:15:12 -0500
From: Andrew Allen <aallen@blackberry.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
Thread-Index: AQHQEJCKEBti1FXXNkmH1ALOez9gJ5yIDJ6AgAAEMgCAABkhAIAAMv0AgAAFMACAASv7AP//0R/A
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 23:15:12 +0000
Message-ID: <BBF5DDFE515C3946BC18D733B20DAD233998DC4C@XMB122CNC.rim.net>
References: <E3FA0C72-48C5-465E-AE15-EB19D8D563A7@ieca.com> <CAPF_GTaJwaS9+9uSSGTC1+RqKb=uF8UQxsP4u5jPJiRi=88-Nw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dvGH6jEp072GxfQwZ=O_QaxZpTrq3bgd2A-gOMj2PL9ZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPw+JoXmHM_nH=ZF6zWfMpw_V1MLZU=hD6kac8qv_Z5eQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dsv9W9_x+RroLdsAKyhNAFGGdCTm9P3BMf1_L0XzB8UBQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141210012208.GK19538@hex.shelbyville.oz> <E425BA63-1BF0-4E51-AC4E-453A9E04C60F@apple.com>
In-Reply-To: <E425BA63-1BF0-4E51-AC4E-453A9E04C60F@apple.com>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.65.160.249]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Vj1vP-hBIBheDN3a3lnc_WTd8Vc
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec
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, 10 Dec 2014 23:15:34 -0000

It could be a telemetry device supporting only the data channel so no audio or video (not such an odd duck I think).

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of David Singer
Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:16 PM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] confirming sense of the room: mti codec


> On Dec 9, 2014, at 17:22 , Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 05:03:34PM -0800, Bernard Aboba wrote:
>> My bad.
>> 
>> New question:  How can an endpoint that implements video but none of 
>> the MTI codecs be construed as "WebRTC Compatible"?
> 
> And what about an endpoint that implements coffee making, but not audio?

ah, that’s different.

“I do video” —  but I chose a strange codec and I don’t interoperate with anyone else who does, only myself
   and
“I don’t do video at all”

are very different places to be.

If I build a web app that is a baby monitor (relays just the sound of the baby’s room) and doesn’t do video, I would hope that it could claim to be a webRTC endpoint, no?  Similarly for a silent surveillance camera — audio codec requirements are irrelevant because it doesn’t do audio at all.

The codec requirements are effectively conditional on supporting the media. I suppose we could state that, and suggest that a webRTC endpoint that does neither video nor audio is at best an odd duck, but I thought it was fairly obvious.

David Singer
Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email