Re: [ortc] Section 9.4: multiStreamSupport (#108)

So you're saying we need "H.264/MS" (which is a more appropriate name for
two reasons :) is needed anyway?  Well, if we need it anyway, then we don't
need "supportsMultiSsrcLayering" on top of that (at least not yet).


On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>  Our implementation of H.264/SVC only supports SST-MS, so if there is a
> separate name we do not need the flag. Might need the separate name anyway
> because of other differences (e.g. packetization modes, PACSI NAL usage,
> etc.). H.264/SVC SST-SS has a profile from UCI Forum but SST-MS does not.
>
> On Jul 18, 2014, at 3:45 PM, "Robin Raymond" <robin@hookflash.com> wrote:
>
>
>  As I understand it Microsoft does have need SST-MS codecs they want to
> use. Right Bernard?
>
>  This isn’t theoretical.
>
>  I know we’d prefer to use SST-MS codecs if they become available.
>
>  --
> Robin Raymond
>
>
>  On July 18, 2014 at 5:41:12 PM, Peter Thatcher (pthatcher@google.com)
> wrote:
>
>   We can figure that out when if it becomes a real issue.  For now, it's
> just a theoretical issue.
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>  I don’t have an issue with having two codes, one which supports SST-SS
>> and SST-MS. That’s perfectly fine. My concern is being able to determine
>> which is which by parsing the codec name. I much prefer to have the boolean
>> flag that we have now to know the operating mode of the codec SS vs MS). We
>> have all we need from an API to support MS versions, we just need the flag
>> in the capabilities we have now to tell us the operating mode of a
>> particular SVC codec.
>>
>>  --
>> Robin Raymond
>>
>>   On July 18, 2014 at 4:50:47 PM, Peter Thatcher (pthatcher@google.com)
>> wrote:
>>
>>   If we ever get to the point where we need "VP8-MS", we can come up
>> with a better solution if we want.  I don't think it's worth adding
>> complexity for a problem we may or may not have in the future.
>>
>>
>>  On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Bernard Aboba <
>> Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  If a given codec can only handle a single transport mode it is not an
>>> issue. But it would be strange to have to have "VP8" and "VP8-MS" codec
>>> names, one denoting SST-SS and the other SST-MS.
>>>
>>> On Jul 18, 2014, at 12:05 PM, Robin Raymond <notifications@github.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>   Maybe I don't understand the proposal but I don't like "magic" codec
>>> names where I parse out meaning from the name. I'd rather have a flag and
>>> be clear if the codec supports MSS vs not supported. You still need two
>>> codecs in that case if the codec supports either operating mode but I don't
>>> like the idea of parsing out "-mss" or something to know the codec supports
>>> it.
>>>
>>> —
>>> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
>>> <https://github.com/openpeer/ortc/issues/108#issuecomment-49468028>.
>>>
>>>
>>
>