- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 17:55:35 -0700
- To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
- Cc: "public-ortc@w3.org" <public-ortc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJrXDUFOv5N4PrS3So13J=0rswOWRT9ywv2jh_C_JfkbQ63ZxA@mail.gmail.com>
I like preferredPayloadType being there like you put it. And I think preferredId on RtpHeaderExtension would be fine, too, the more I think about it. By the way, what's up with "hzRate"? Isn't that kind of redundant? It sounds to me like calling it "rateRate" or maybe "poundsWeight". Is there a deeper meaning that I'm missing? On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com> wrote: > Peter said: > > > > “Now that we've removed filterParameters/createParameters, I think we need > > to find another way to make the simple use case and simple example > work. I > > really don't want our "simple example" to be dependent on a JS library, or > > have to choosing ssrcs. I'd like the simple examples to remain simple. > > > > So what can we do? Here is an idea: > > > > 1. Allow passing in RtpCapabilities into RtpSender.send and > > RtpReceiver.receive. That way, the signalling could just exchange > > capabilities and not have to create RtpParameters for the simple case. > > > > 2. Send and receive with the preferredPayloadType. The sender just picks > > some SSRC, and the receiver automatically locks onto them, as if the JS had > > listened to "onunsignalledrtp" and added SSRCs manually. > > > > > > That doesn't support header extensions (since the receiver wouldn't know > > the IDs) or layering or FEC, but that might be OK for the simple use case. > > > > > > Are there dragons that I'm not thinking of that would make this not work? > > ” > > > > [BA] Agree that with preferredPayloadType, RTCRtpCodec should have enough > info to setup a single stream audio or video call by exchanging > capabilities. > > > > Also agree that currently headerExtensions wouldn’t work because there are > no IDs (would preferredID fix this? Do we care?). > > > > Am wondering how much we can do with features and rtcpFeedback as > currently defined. > > > > For example, we should be able to figure out what feedback messages (e.g, > PLI, FIR) are available for repair with the single-stream video. > > > > > > > > partial interface RTCRtpSender { > > void send (optional RTCRtpParameters parameters, optional > RTCRtpCapabilities remoteCapabilities); > > } > > > > partial interface RTCRtpReceiver { > > void receive (optional RTCRtpParameters parameters, optional > RTCRtpCapabilities remoteCapabilities); > > } > > > > dictionary RTCRtpCapabilities { > > sequence<RTCRtpCodec> audioCodecs; > > sequence<RTCRtpCodec> videoCodecs; > > sequence<DOMString> headerExtensions; > > Capabilities features; > > Capabilities rtcpFeedback; > > }; > > > > > > dictionary RTCRtpCodec { > > DOMString name = ""; > > unsigned short? hzRate = null; > > unsigned short preferredPayloadType; > > unsigned short? numChannels = 1; > > Capabilities formats; > > }; > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2014 00:56:42 UTC