Re: [rtcweb] JSEPbis: Questions about send-only/recv-only codecs and Section 4.2.6

Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com> Sat, 02 March 2024 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <hta@google.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 C6973C1C4D9A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 04:29:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -22.609
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-22.609 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0wmLcfvUgHKu for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 04:29:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com (mail-wm1-x32e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFF09C14CE4B for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Mar 2024 04:29:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-412a4432415so05e9.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Mar 2024 04:29:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1709382578; x=1709987378; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=QoZ26Zd4uChTd5XEIELQI+Zopo+lrkc4dZirGit43ys=; b=YqbFNtc29YFq1qkAHje67c/h4AodBNhhpd9augjM/T8AnOed3T1ofycwS+wb+D8epN NpBsHWUIk4ld8sm5T+d0QH0ntmqIcc5h/cXPZ/1IQ7EBF8/xx1zinDYE6ssenh7O0fu1 0+4TzuEP/hc307ClgKmYVoZ5gJqNatz4b6WYjOO9+puMoRa+aOJdqEls9C5+bc8E+XR4 qGMsWoA4tcvTEUGI/GSv6ilCYroQyFD/RqME/PwPZf0mzCEMBnthH3eXqriSrVWsdSRQ 80CvnqWh6UHA31+WrUb1Ots6YM9LaMb81rXPVdmfCvZYLUhXdP7ACndoEWJEybF9mSQz 9q7g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1709382578; x=1709987378; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=QoZ26Zd4uChTd5XEIELQI+Zopo+lrkc4dZirGit43ys=; b=TSx9X3R2yV/eBoxEon1OlnH0Rs6+Au4RNApJ7U41v3TRltr1MGlFwj6ZlS7go95WhN 6YO7WNaFxPNLpWGlfDotVZ5usocwgIHhV2bQDbXNWbiIGEwdS31qIlEXFL8Xpxg8rMxK bIiyHtwgcmZMFe4ByaJqaU0dr3vl7Y/WqlDbb7DvMRLIZrM4rN9KdF8a3jEQpgMHiere euZX0iZwLpf/vstWqrIN8k4L1wGVFCJzaldqr570BHMQproK+YNZIh5Zt4nJVr360aVb 1fgMB2FTGAaQcvoD9DRo0U8KUv8UylyG8B3CkIEUhIjYtbCkPHhy89RzH0YANjKQzJKH ilxQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyTLpd6lxE9l13uk1Azv/lszq/lrOXWtf5Uahbn0ZYksz1MksMn IukAgtR348KU+l/UlnabEJYC2SJiQ4NUcC7TN0PeHKoIFteMUbXClA29+DjVI2xGIKHZIf1tjW6 JDg793spctW7a7fHAHWESV8/itqgWPovvyweX
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHe9had1EGK3zTrZttbshhPztVLGBI/73w7hREX2BN2K/koDaCFModNx0b3mfU78vEeczpN8KffKhNEfikEd2M=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:2202:b0:412:b48e:9575 with SMTP id z2-20020a05600c220200b00412b48e9575mr439wml.2.1709382577319; Sat, 02 Mar 2024 04:29:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAOW+2dud=K0TuQ5s-MKgmnuvxR-DebFFhquigUbsiKQB3RjdNw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOW+2dud=K0TuQ5s-MKgmnuvxR-DebFFhquigUbsiKQB3RjdNw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 08:29:20 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOqqYVGhwsxxj1AnUU+Qk5A9DcqnaGCc5YGo9ntd-CvrY0v6Nw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Philipp Hancke <philipp.hancke@gmail.com>, Henrik Boström <hbos@google.com>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004f109b0612aca52a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/bnKQ2w2SdLA5PSld5MmRJUhQnQ0>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEPbis: Questions about send-only/recv-only codecs and Section 4.2.6
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 12:29:40 -0000

Attempting to reflect my current understanding:

The only way I can interpret the current text in a sensible manner is to
focus on the word "directly" - given that the text on processing the
preference list also says that if the responder has no preference, the
codecs in the sendonly media section's preference list should be
interpreted as "the codecs that the offerer wishes that the responder
should respond with as their preference, if they can receive them".

This *indirectly* influences the choice of codecs, since the receiver's
response will limit the sender's selection of what to send.




On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 9:00 PM Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The purpose of this email is to alert the RTCWEB WG to a potential issue
> that has been pointed out in JSEPbis Section 4.2.6, with respect to the
> operation of setCodecPreferences().
>
> Currently, support for the H.265 codec in WebRTC is underway in multiple
> browsers, including Chrome, Firefox and Safari.  Safari Tech Preview 189
> has enabled by default support for both sending and receiving H.265, while
> Chrome and Firefox are working on enabling reception of H.265.  This has
> lead to discussion of potential interoperability issues between browsers
> that can Offer H.265 on a send/recv m-line, and browsers that can only
> Offer H.265 on a recv-only m-line.
>
> At the AVTCORE WG Virtual Interim on February 13, 2024, we discussed Issue
> 22 relating to the handling of send-only and recv-only codecs:
> https://github.com/aboba/hevc-webrtc/issues/22
>
> draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis Section 4.2.6 says:
>
> "The setCodecPreferences method sets the codec preferences of a
> transceiver, which in turn affect the presence and order of codecs of the
> associated "m=" section on future calls to createOffer and createAnswer.  *Note
> that setCodecPreferences does not directly affect which codec the
> implementation decides to send. It only affects which codecs the
> implementation indicates that it prefers to receive, via the offer or
> answer.*  Even when a codec is excluded by setCodecPreferences, it still
> may be used to send until the next offer/answer exchange discards it."
>
> Questions arose relating to the (red) text in italics, because it does not
> appear to be consistent with the definition of setCodecPreferences() within
> the WebRTC-PC API specification. In particular, while the text may be
> correct with respect to operation of sCP() on a send/recv or recv-only
> m-line, for a send-only m-line it seems odd to insist that sCP() will only
> affect receive preferences, not send preferences.
>
> Currently within the W3C WEBRTC WG, several issues have been opened
> relating to the behavior of setCodecPreferences():
>
>    -
>
>    w3c/webrtc-pc#2936 <https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/2936>
>    -
>
>    w3c/webrtc-pc#2933 <https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/2933>
>    -
>
>    w3c/webrtc-pc#2935 <https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/2935>
>    -
>
>    w3c/webrtc-pc/#2888 <https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/2888>
>
>