Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01

[Brian Rosen <[e-mail]>]

Well, we certainly want interoperability, and I think we can only get that with MTI codecs.

I think we really are talking about a WebRTC-compatible endpoint, but we want interoperability with a WebRTC browser endpoint.

Not sure how to say this.  Maybe Adam can help.

Brian

> On Aug 12, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> draft-rosen-rue-01 changes the video codec requirements. It now simply references webrtc RFC7742.
> 
> RFC7742 distinguishes three types of endpoints: "WebRTC browser", "WebRTC non-browser", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint". AFAIK it assumes that each end is one of these.
> 
> Is the expectation here that both the RUE and the provider comply with one of these? In particular, that the provider may simply be a "WebRTC-compatible endpoint? Notably:
> 
>   "WebRTC-compatible endpoints" are free to implement any video codecs
>   they see fit.  This follows logically from the definition of "WebRTC-
>   compatible endpoint".  It is, of course, advisable to implement at
>   least one of the video codecs that is mandated for WebRTC browsers,
>   and implementors are encouraged to do so.
> 
> Similarly, the audio requirements have been changed to reference webrtc RFC7874. That one doesn't have the distinction between "WebRTC browser", "WebRTC non-browser", and "WebRTC-compatible endpoint". It applies the same requirements to all. In particular, it requires OPUS support. I don't know why it doesn't make the same endpoint distinctions as for video.
> 
> I think simply referencing these documents isn't sufficient. Seems like we need a more nuanced specification of what is required, though we may still reference these docs with qualifications.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
>