- From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 11:27:48 +0200
- To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "public-ortc@w3.org" <public-ortc@w3.org>
2016-04-13 6:59 GMT+02:00 Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>: > SVC can be done in MRST. There are a few advantages (such as not requiring > the SFU to rewrite sequence numbers, simplified protection of selected > layers with FEC) but alignment of the layers is trickier, requiring either a > Decoding Order Number (DON) in the RTP Payload or RFC 6051. Overall, the > simplicity of SRST probably makes it the preferred choice. In a bundled and rtcp-mux world I hope we can just ignore MRST. > Simulcast senders must use distinct SSRCs since simulcast by definition > involves separate streams, each with their own sequence number space. So > SRST simulcast does not make sense. Makes sense. What it does not make sense is the fact that when I fill a RTCRtpParameters (for a sender) I'm totally free to set VP8, VP9, H264 and H265 all of them over the same SSRC. -- Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2016 09:28:36 UTC