IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] 答复: 答复: Some thoughts on optional audio codecs

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 22 July 2013 03:47 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 B2BD421F9EDF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:47:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -98.729
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-98.729 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-3.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_SUB_ENC_GB2312=1.345, 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 3kyi7BNkRFDT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f176.google.com (mail-qc0-f176.google.com [209.85.216.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4276A21F9D56 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z10so3388744qcx.35 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:47:38 -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=rS60u4B/xRx+fBFzBngIwXxe410lBa331tgeToafY/w=; b=ZFJPpomX385/k8UceGu0sYUNTP4XCRxxgb/8gpn6T5C2PeC/UUtKWa67fkm2w+o3hU kVDo7Ha/bVHj3MRWTLAmBLWg+dXR+2Z69qEALUO7hUlyNiDj8mHSx0vaSktv9gdV4+zR Gtbh4O3McA65P+PHAa0/6xsdFWAwkdiBieS6ldkNtFkqSZVnBTzupEJVq/Z2MAd82jbG EgqdM1J4gY/tQ5TRiFbnAVP9dxJEhbKAADpkRs8J0w2msATke9QqvhrBLZcowmb7zVo2 F9lY9/CkesXGqgNNlTDxPfQ6SU+c5GvsA5ieEbHmGfyND13BNEf4qYlsrzjFSFlZW46d vmzw==
X-Received: by 10.224.223.202 with SMTP id il10mr18600696qab.87.1374464857689; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.48.234 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:46:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.168]
In-Reply-To: <A3045C90BB645147BC99159AA47ABAC7419F6161@szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <BBE9739C2C302046BD34B42713A1E2A22DEE3029@ESESSMB105.ericsson.se> <A3045C90BB645147BC99159AA47ABAC7419F610E@szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CABcZeBNrVByn0fnYB_CEgZ9eFMX+nF8Rmmn3yLm-VZET9sBhcA@mail.gmail.com> <A3045C90BB645147BC99159AA47ABAC7419F6161@szxeml558-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 20:46:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBPHiU+gKzmNVB-mA9Bxeq30ix9MbZ=T5LA58pL-Mc1Jfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Lijing (Jessie, Technology Introduction & Standard and Patent Dept)" <lijing80@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2318e99621504e2118958"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnlm0tJIqxHiKtVHWSkUQ8UgWV2ZlR5pJ0epocVZPXfPEGCPOztZLpM+daGju99m72qS4C5
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 答复: 答复: Some thoughts on optional audio codecs
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: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 03:47:46 -0000

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Lijing (Jessie, Technology Introduction &
Standard and Patent Dept) <lijing80@huawei.com> wrote:

>  Sorry，I’ve confused two concepts. What I want to express is that,****
>
> Firstly, the browser may be able to make use of “native” codec APIs of the
> “hard” device(e.g. mobile phone), and include the “native” codecs in the
> SDP O/A messages.****
>
> In addition, for application flexibility, the browser should provide codec
> capability APIs to developers. Then,  the developers can choose proper
> codecs according to the specific scenario. ****
>
> ** **
>
> So there should be two APIs. The first is provide by the device and used
> by the browser.
>

Well, devices may or may not do this, but that's kind of out of scope for
this WG.


The second is provided by the browser and used by the developer.
>

Yes, this seems not unreasonable...

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email