- From: youennf via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 09:00:23 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
@aboba, I am not sure of the scope of changes you are requesting here. Do you have a particular proposal in mind on how to address this issue? I believe there is consensus for SFrame transported over RTP as long as it is audio (SPacket == SFrame in that case) but not for video. Would acknowledging the issue for video in the current draft be sufficient to address your concerns? > At IETF 111, [SPacket ](https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/111/materials/slides-111-avtcore-ietf-111-avtcore-slides-02) was proposed as an alternative to SFrame. I think there is some confusion here. @murillo128 might confirm but SPacket was not proposed as an alternative at IETF 111. In any case, SPacket and SFrame share the same format that SFrameTransform as a transform stream implements. The SFrame format is adopted by the SFrame WG so we are on solid ground there. -- GitHub Notification of comment by youennf Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-encoded-transform/issues/112#issuecomment-895856620 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 10 August 2021 09:00:26 UTC