I missed last week's phone conference, the time difference with China is not great.

Not sure what is superfluous with the requirement if the TF indicates it as a use case. Is this in relation to what WG will adopt?

In relation to CT3 I do not see the difference of specying the lower quality from specifying the higher (HD) quality as in CT2.

Being able to specify a HD quality of a video is a very desireable user feature. It may not be that a user is after HD but the user wants to avoid running into video quality degredation frequently and stick to a lower quality. Setting upper and lower limits will improve user experience if UA does not have a predictable network access like when travelling with a mobile connection.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clarke Stevens [] 
> Sent: den 26 januari 2012 06:47
> To:
> Subject: [MEDIA_PIPELINE_TF] Need for CT2?
> At the end of last week's meeting, it seems we were coming to 
> the conclusion that use case "CT2" is not necessary. Here's a 
> link for your
> convenience:
> el_Proposal#U
> se_Cases
> Please speak up if you feel this use case is required and 
> please provide some justification. The current consensus 
> appears to be that the best quality segment for the available 
> bandwidth will likely be chosen anyway, so the requirement is 
> superfluous. Also, there is nothing preventing the user agent 
> from implementing CT2 without any change necessary.
> -Clarke

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2012 15:37:00 UTC