IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec - Possible to use.

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 19 October 2012 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 41FE721F8699 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.181, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id h+UJ7Hl19-DR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (mail-la0-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C42021F8639 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id b11so422871lam.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:58:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=8O9h7FuXpNlnVy5fpKHKrkNZ9C6/A5MgqKjdc30mQaE=; b=cLw9fQqvOxiVH5egvj/cKrNEfJqsBTPlOQSb5EiMy8kyMPPDuYb6n5jd6Wn87/rhdI HwrYUG6s6Qnv48DZMPeNJuywH9BfD7/TwhPvtGE049esudi06QfFC5liKak8V8BGjdWE H57opgUrl7LCWx24WG4wnQQ8sLH6z1V5SAWLvmquZ8RYRGmNlH5KDQFk8iU0ZopezaRt V0zEntN4iLz3QmXPz+VSqWNTTgg9D7T9+PrTPUYRN0hsGnbTuoQv56sdgCqQd72XlduQ iNtTHPpMMp/I3pRm09RNPNCPSmzXQpTt/cXPolq5PUF8g5DGwGSt9G5UQxPR5VB8sG03 p1Nw==
Received: by 10.152.103.38 with SMTP id ft6mr1386691lab.40.1350658706962; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:58:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.25.39 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:57:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.173]
In-Reply-To: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF0130A96F@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
References: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF0130A96F@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:57:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNEDjQaKwwwNodsCjCh7G8bkAQSsNnPArbVoXkekZecmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hutton, Andrew" <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnMchvyH6nJZlGVJ/miIZfbZLmGo+7qvtW8+sF2HH3iCKr5wSMmv4a056OGy7UHseK9RcDv
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Video Codec - Possible to use.
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: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:58:29 -0000

I don't really understand the question.

Obviously, it should be possible for WebRTC implementations (e.g., browsers)
to derive codecs from the underlying platform (just as some browsers get
their libc or their crypto libraries from the underlying platform). Similarly,
it should be possible for browsers to allow pluggable additional codecs.
In both cases these seem like features browser implementors might
choose to provide at their discretion and which wouldn't be visible to
Web content.

Did you have something else in mind?

-Ekr


On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 6:58 AM, Hutton, Andrew
<andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The question of whether it will be possible for a webrtc application to make us of video codec's (or audio codec) which are not implemented in the browser itself has been raised before but I don't think there has been a clear answer.
>
> Some clarity on this might help some of us to come to a conclusion on where we stand in the MTI debate.
>
> I looked through the archives and found some statements that indicate this should be possible but I not sure we have a definitive statement on this. For example:
>
> On 06 September 2012 00:29 Randall Gellens
>>
>> One of the goals of rtcweb is to encourage greater use of native
>> codecs, and greater access to such codecs by applications such as
>> those running in browsers.  These are worthy goals, since native
>> codecs often have better performance within the environment.
>> (Examples include AMR and EVRC on handsets.)  These codecs also can
>> be supported out-of-the-box, no separate downloads, no signed forms.
>>
>
> Is this really a goal we have agreement on? There does not seem to specific requirements in the requirements draft.
>
> Also I think there are SDP implications relating to this. How would the browser and/or application be able to build the correct SDP to offer additional codecs?
>
> Regards
> Andy
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email