Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and codecs from Friday session
Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com> Fri, 08 April 2016 22:18 UTC
Return-Path: <deadbeef@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 F16D312D5A5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:18:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gsm2bB7iBFyT for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:18:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 582D112D5BD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id t10so150780736ywa.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:18:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=Ob+/cqUVn3Ij5r9QEXoQsf6xd3iVBO8EGrnx6amcjbA=; b=IoNijbzj2UmmuGoVQexFw8U3LiG6rOW20mkeCQu1YxCCzMoL+yKPbeE83eO3bwAak9 Fzvjs9b9dPqFgFFKNtYQKRwWbl8iKs/MZOrybLkW5iAmqGMzFlUGZRLwm92j9Bsuez6u f51o86jmPDGMcdyGnsWc4ZOqDue37xLncGzW97+1BQcIEqQtnjhLLmqCIDDTf9QQ3Hb3 5GZ+ADKXy04LCZSkcyujm2fEutyfN7Ux/7kCOD0GcbmLaUjPfBujS6Dlbn1pKkPlB0JD kkp7CrbHP8FRo0u3DP1QhLiXTuV2Vavu6zYAvlhsaZEUr/7inMBXLcrI1spEBuGRTK3q zPIQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=Ob+/cqUVn3Ij5r9QEXoQsf6xd3iVBO8EGrnx6amcjbA=; b=JR8tHDI2EGdiAELeQfX18pVd1R1HsObRFS8Xxhi3Hvk4NYTb/MzQphBlRCNxBaCBaO ZYXR/Febf6odETXUQFQZbABCJyjXurBQ7XlApCcN/ZVgKQF9iSZxAICxpS19NvVOFP6I tnVxzO09WMB3E7fgQyt4X1hYFhJ2+7+9f6ncxPwYC4U1nPNlSANs85WlJJspQxCD9SUq ZyGSRL0skFYe0POUAPplxEfDZPZ3wmlpLUJAqIEEWDPQOsRniM2EY2DN2jI2dfwfTZf7 iirkCP1WDQPsc9BWOk8rjMCsdIsUBY2CDsIFQsth6n5yNDZpZXNA39Jzyi6lsQ1qlHO+ 6ZXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJITmdSrVk3N66CqGieAeK813UHGmQleCSP+9y+T52JZYHCqS18XJn8Q9QQWtoctCadFqfy3xxLuPJ+eVtn5
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.37.90.87 with SMTP id o84mr5917267ybb.9.1460153880479; Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.129.98.9 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:18:00 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <57082A21.7010005@alvestrand.no>
References: <5708256F.5080205@alum.mit.edu> <57082A21.7010005@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:18:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK35n0b=Qa5JxqrMUdSH92uw4U3=HyFuKSspZjgKN8vn_MuSqg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114268885d90940530009131"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/yV7Y04jW5QOjCiJC2WaN6Y8xnFo>
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and codecs from Friday session
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 22:18:09 -0000
In Section 6 of RFC 3264: > The answerer MUST send using a media format in the offer that is also listed in the answer > > So, if X offers A and B, and Y answers B, how would Y be able to send A? It's not in both the offer and the answer. On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > This indicates that the answer's omission of a codec does not allow the > offerer to deallocate resources that it has reserved for decoding that > type of stream (such as hardware). > > Under this interpretation, if I reserve hardware for decoding VP8 and > H.264, and I get back an answer that indicates VP8 only, I cannot > deallocate my H.264 resources, since the answerer may choose to send me > H.264 anyway. > > This contradicts something I think I've heard Cullen claim multiple > times, but I may have misunderstood Cullen. > > > On 04/08/2016 11:41 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote: > > During the rtcweb session today, while discussing (I think) JSEP issue > > #247 (Document what should happen when there are no matching codecs in > > answer), there was a question about happens in a particular case. I > > think it was: > > > > - X offers codecs A and B (sendrecv) > > - Y answers codec B (sendrecv) > > > > The question was whether Y may use codec A when sending to X. Jonathan > > gave an answer I disagreed with and we had a chat about it. He got an > > action item to follow up afterwords, then he asked if I would do it. > > > > As I read RFC3264, the answer is: > > > > Yes, in the above case Y may send A to X. > > > > Then a subsequent scenario came up: what would happen if Y has a need > > to send a (re)offer? Wouldn't this result in an inability to send > > using A? (Let's assume that Y is unable/unwilling to *receive* A but > > can send it, even though this is a weird case.) > > > > - Y offers codec B (sendrecv) > > - X answers codec B and A (sendrecv) > > > > This *is* permitted by 3264. And in this case Y will be allowed to > > continue sending using codec A. > > > > Relevant pieces of 3264 supporting this interpretation: > > > > - section 5.1 (Generating the Initial Offer/Unicast Streams): > > > > ... If multiple formats are listed, it > > means that the offerer is capable of making use of any of those > > formats during the session. In other words, the answerer MAY change > > formats in the middle of the session, making use of any of the > > formats listed, without sending a new offer. > > > > - section 6.1 (Generating the Answer/Unicast Streams): > > > > ... For streams marked as sendrecv in the answer, > > the "m=" line MUST contain at least one codec the answerer is willing > > to both send and receive, from amongst those listed in the offer. > > The stream MAY indicate additional media formats, not listed in the > > corresponding stream in the offer, that the answerer is willing to > > send or receive (of course, it [the answerer] will not be able to > > send them at this time, since it was not listed in the offer). > > > > - section 8.3.2 (Changing the Set of Media Formats): > > > > The list of media formats used in the session MAY be changed. To do > > this, the offerer creates a new media description, with the list of > > media formats in the "m=" line different from the corresponding media > > stream in the previous SDP. This list MAY include new formats, and > > MAY remove formats present from the previous SDP. ... > > > > The corresponding media stream in the answer is formulated as > > described in Section 6, and may result in a change in media formats > > as well. Similarly, as described in Section 6, as soon as it sends > > its answer, the answerer MUST begin sending media using any formats > > in the offer that were also present in the answer, and SHOULD use the > > most preferred format in the offer that was also listed in the answer > > (assuming the stream allows for sending), and MUST NOT send using any > > formats that are not in the offer, even if they were present in a > > previous SDP from the peer. Similarly, when the offerer receives the > > answer, it MUST begin sending media using any formats in the answer, > > and SHOULD use the most preferred one (assuming the stream allows for > > sending), and MUST NOT send using any formats that are not in the > > answer, even if they were present in a previous SDP from the peer. > > > > I'm not too clear on how this relates to issue #247, but at least I > > hope we can agree on what 3264 says. > > > > Thanks, > > Paul > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtcweb mailing list > > rtcweb@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb > > > -- > Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark. > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and codecs… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and co… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and co… Taylor Brandstetter
- Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and co… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and co… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and co… Taylor Brandstetter
- Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and co… Taylor Brandstetter
- Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and co… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Followup to discussion of O/A and co… Paul Kyzivat