Re: [rtcweb] JS friendly codec compromise?

Zach Lym <zachlym@indolering.com> Wed, 02 April 2014 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <indolering@gmail.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 EA5791A01FB for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:32:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.377
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.377 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 49u_oGJfENA1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22e.google.com (mail-pb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECD81A01C8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rq2so433042pbb.19 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=yw7foIjGlvugptBceu1EvjLkfYLLckv72gNhpNKz8q8=; b=hQSXsZGH8TseCJB3/ZXE1/RhSQXEKy/U8V9B3Llhq1acu0AG1fyIw7nVp1nsX9oD9l lOS4InMkSC6Vo7U55Ypol6+UudKEm2G4z6JPhFs4jHem2vaYUgyHWTGeQ60nwoi0hxvT raoTWN8y9oTz1mUfq20rddiCUZWdk8jte0wnHMmJJkHZq5u0sqLOce1dD4gBjoLKrBkE seJVLlraZZA4f7GkQMz1ODMqY1/PglFmRY6bDEc6qmKkYtaEEQX+k9fEjSLbOcPSInyD M5m8ltHHql6gs69YyW0Ul1lQMjE8Ee3HgmnyHtAk7X9UtJ9gqCvZPdr4mX7IjcxBZljz u8hQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=indolering.com; s=google; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=yw7foIjGlvugptBceu1EvjLkfYLLckv72gNhpNKz8q8=; b=lDGxKTEvsTaFciUt1+jGNV7MQ+NkwIm3snj95fO+9s8q7HrIy7Jx5vQlSISR7HfIp0 TY0M5rraVYB8wGuFqwV4VatGq5CaAHIFw/FD62YATppxgoLwklFy8iVIUH/X9/nyBpMk rxS5hnBGe7VwUMrekj/hhrWmk5uVmmehV3Jag=
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.164.135 with SMTP id yq7mr1177451pab.126.1396456356727; Wed, 02 Apr 2014 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: indolering@gmail.com
Received: by 10.70.64.194 with HTTP; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnX7oSw7oUtVx68qX6ZdM+RCnkzZqihip6AqnOWheYEdRw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABWuLVey==ZNYog1iLkWiy3Ec6JkOASDPkjg-7BLLenvxf4q+w@mail.gmail.com> <j2fmj9tvssjfl8qa93q5t7to812vmjhjhh@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <533B48CF.1030705@indolering.com> <g2jmj9hvgq5ecgbru4fpd74uc9uvm6ssls@hive.bjoern.hoehrmann.de> <533B6A6E.7070208@indolering.com> <CABkgnnX7oSw7oUtVx68qX6ZdM+RCnkzZqihip6AqnOWheYEdRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2014 09:32:36 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: bx0XR37HJLPcHGtqsTsgOzrq2Ks
Message-ID: <CABWuLVdyN-u=-k5hz6VY70WQYD5dyUSEG8SLz7_HiYk_4Rq9Kg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Zach Lym <zachlym@indolering.com>
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6d7fb416558904f611d527
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/dbkZxbUva-oVshlbfjzzQbHO8KU
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JS friendly codec compromise?
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, 02 Apr 2014 16:32:45 -0000

My apologies, I am rather ignorant of the gritty implementation details.

Maybe ORBX.js will be of some use, I guess we will see what the summer
brings.

I'll get back to my corner of expertise,
-Zach
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 1 April 2014 18:39, Zach Lym <zachlym@indolering.com <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> > However, the larger point Brendan Eich makes, and what I am trying to
> > convey here, is that eschewing a fixed bit-stream format in favor of a
> > living standard would make such comparisons moot.  Clients could even
> > send the JS needed to decode their custom format to each other.  The
> > web is based on specifying interfaces, think of this as an interface
> > for codecs.
>
> Unfortunately, a JS-implemented codec does not play well with isolated
> sessions, otherwise we can't establish true private calling.  In that
> context, we still need something that the browser can control.
> Perhaps with the right sandbox it could work, but I think that it's a
> little too early to be considering that option.  Soon, perhaps.
>


-- 
Thank you,
-Zach Lym