Re: [rtcweb] Plan A, respun

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

On 16.05.13, 20:43, Emil Ivov wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Adam Roach <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> Your insistence of using "32" rather than "96" is somewhat reminiscent
> 
> 96? Do you assume no use of rtcp-mux?

I suppose you must be referring to [5761#4]:

   Values below 64
   MAY be used if that is insufficient, in which case it is RECOMMENDED
   that payload type numbers that are not statically assigned by be
   used first.

While this works on paper, most media libraries are likely to have many
of those statically bound to the formats from 3551. This would bring us
down to 61. Even then going below 96 is still likely to be problematic
for many such libraries.

This actually reminds me how recently (I believe it was in Boston)
someone advised that in trickle ICE, even though 3264 allowed it, we
shouldn't be using 0.0.0.0 in descriptions with no candidates. This was
because (from the notes) "otherwise, you have to add special purpose
code to existing SDP libraries".

Emil


-- 
https://jitsi.org