Re: [rtcweb] Signalling, SDP, and the way we think about interconnecting RTCWEB applications

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com> Thu, 20 October 2011 02:26 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@cisco.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 7E41711E80BF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.514, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 gCor6ihuL8Jn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF46111E80C9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=fluffy@cisco.com; l=611; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1319077605; x=1320287205; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=ET6CZGxnpg52Ns5lquOI+nRo0acmDzzUXDXvK1KLNoM=; b=Fjwv69limWgspED5Zjk7NWWYqf6TIfROlowWvx4i1oUezYCx1tLCMMC5 QTDQDVUEwUqLvaoy+gSgHSzbAqsDja5z2ASvvGIJW48OQwvnVNy+C9ZH8 MAiEjf/fSQeDZ8k8Q9wm42LJtZulmXBV6KAECVTqYbG4Nt/5ruUGYfmD2 Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EAO+Fn06rRDoG/2dsb2JhbABEqQOBBYFuAQEBAQMSASc/EAtGVwY1nzwBnk2HOmEEiAKLfIUqjEw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,375,1315180800"; d="scan'208";a="9031058"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Oct 2011 02:26:45 +0000
Received: from [192.168.4.100] (sjc-fluffy-8914.cisco.com [10.20.249.165]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9K2QiFd004967; Thu, 20 Oct 2011 02:26:45 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABF2090.323F1%stewe@stewe.org>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 20:26:44 -0600
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <462E0695-38AF-4202-AC30-703A021D33D6@cisco.com>
References: <CABF2090.323F1%stewe@stewe.org>
To: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Signalling, SDP, and the way we think about interconnecting RTCWEB applications
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, 20 Oct 2011 02:26:46 -0000

On Oct 15, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Stephan Wenger wrote:

>> (that said... I'm all in favour of fewer parameters. The RTP format for
>> VP8 that we're in the process of finishing has zero parameters. I hope
>> it will remain that way.)

My guess is that VP8 will end up with roughly the same order of magnitude number of parameters as H.264 - they will get added for more or less the same reasons they are there in H.264. Of course less is more and it would be great to have less, but many of therese are needed - particularly if you expect to support codecs with hardware support.