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

Brian Rosen <> Tue, 27 August 2019 19:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A36012012E for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:34:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id irpcOj3HJZgi for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FFF8120116 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id t12so208554qtp.9 for <>; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=XFUuKi9XlO/kqtOpHCmW/etxw1mtFdrlVSf+D9Y6fUo=; b=OrCBChXlmNAKlC4jTc4+AjasSlOCsJGVK6ghDksbWWql365Aaek6LfEK+eVZtR0TBF CxypG4Ribeprt7zT5OMmNz2bwgaaTpiNTbcUYf/pmXNAhU521xzXnr/+GLyiNm2cLO5X duQkI1hSm+pPb7gUDYH3giKmQ/D88MS6h0I8HYVNYQWej2gjWikFSmygbNCqB7kVr7H8 cf7gO8nx1L78JQxszzVLLgpdG6VQGranci65gQVlO022O20Fcx51coH/2lj1/MwBwimH HZQy4qbpeKuTnomsvTOqScbbBaoms9h1O5TKREE6zukr0sT6MynUQNFTLbHnPr1iNj5n LAjA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=XFUuKi9XlO/kqtOpHCmW/etxw1mtFdrlVSf+D9Y6fUo=; b=LAC7plkBaXKHosEbwRLcOaPr7Z4czZnP3jfbk5G+lc7umcnv0Jvvw6wMFXwN/i2Sg/ jCzMqT5uTiui+pYESmA7P/NWSa2qqilA4pec2UDtqyMJLaG1LnnXT6x44FuoRz66IocG Q+mSRTu43XPPQ1T69ONXjZGPE+MYZIpHiUf3nxx/Bc+qNEkOg692r46NZFjL4HmWqQCS UE76fpxxoBoOchjflBViVqSe+Htc3n1hicgwzaLWFud/6IL+dSeTEZbLp/Ov3Kg9mZji nooDMtIjDlvP3NsejzwCOvN5Y5cezbDX3i8k6wkntMAKJ9x0cGIwBV1KTtUbelOJDKoR d//w==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW22AfNGFGupyYCNPFIL5yC/j80FrRehyCLQQWm4yse0CescZ98 gI9j8At/HDeEiyiH6Qgd+mUEJQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw7TQS8Pn/pAcCbyf/U4n6ti1L0ZqcsjlTbwbpCujrQ6gjAj2zzc1WtgcSGSkBqre7JGiLZ9Q==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:73c7:: with SMTP id v7mr508953qtp.9.1566934486328; Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:34:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from brians-mbp-2369.lan ([]) by with ESMTPSA id g13sm17755qtp.21.2019. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Aug 2019 12:34:45 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Brian Rosen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 15:34:45 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
To: Paul Kyzivat <>, Adam Roach <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Rum] Codec requirements in draft-rosen-rue-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Relay User Machine <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 19:34:50 -0000

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.


> On Aug 12, 2019, at 4:20 PM, Paul Kyzivat <> 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