Re: [rtcweb] Resolution negotiation - a contribution

"Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com> Thu, 12 April 2012 09:09 UTC

Return-Path: <tterriberry@mozilla.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 4E2ED21F869A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 02:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MISSING_HEADERS=1.292, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 F3sMPbfzhnO5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 02:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-mail03.mozilla.org (dm-mail03.mozilla.org [63.245.208.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7916421F8698 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 02:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.17.0.5] (c-69-181-137-38.hsd1.ca.comcast.net [69.181.137.38]) (Authenticated sender: tterriberry@mozilla.com) by dm-mail03.mozilla.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1794AEDA1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2012 02:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4F869BD9.6020801@mozilla.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 02:09:45 -0700
From: "Timothy B. Terriberry" <tterriberry@mozilla.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20120113 SeaMonkey/2.4.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
CC: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <4F869648.2020605@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <4F869648.2020605@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Resolution negotiation - a contribution
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, 12 Apr 2012 09:09:47 -0000

Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> time. These bounds MAY be renegotiated over the course of the call,
> but MUST NOT be renegotiated to render any currently transmitted
> video stream out of bounds; the sending video stream MUST first be
> changed to be of a resolution that fits within both the old and the
> new bounds, or halted. <<QUERY: Is this necessary or sufficient
> restriction???>>

Is this restriction intended to be imposed on the sender only? I.e., can 
the recipient still attempt renegotiation (using SDP source selection) 
of a smaller resolution than is currently allowed (e.g., because it's 
CPU-bound)?