W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2015

Re: I have created a PR for RtpSender.getCapabilities and RtpReceiver.getCapabilities

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2015 12:12:58 +0200
Message-ID: <55AA26AA.8030807@alvestrand.no>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 07/18/2015 01:33 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Jul 2015 9:20 am, "Roman Shpount" <roman@telurix.com
> <mailto:roman@telurix.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Peter Thatcher
> <pthatcher@google.com <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> 1.  Is there enough consensus from the WG to add this?  I'm in
> favor of it :).
> >
> >
> > I am for it as well.
> >  
> >>
> >> 2.  Should getCapabilities return a Promise?  I think it doesn't
> need to be, so I made it not return a Promise.
> >
> >
> > I do not think this needs to be a promise. In most cases these
> things are known by implementation in advance and should not require a
> lot of time or resources to compute.
> >  
> >>
> >> 3.  Should codec.name <http://codec.name> be a MIME type
> ("video/vp8") or just a name ("vp8")?  If a MIME type, should it be
> code.mimeType instead of codec.name <http://codec.name>?  Or should we
> have both codec.name <http://codec.name> and codec.mimeType.   I've
> made it codec.name <http://codec.name> with MIME type here, which
> matches ORTC.  But I'm currently thinking I'd prefer codec.name
> <http://codec.name> with a name instead.  I'd also be happy with
> having both codec.name <http://codec.name> and codec.mimeType.
> >>
> >
> > I would think that having separate codec.name
> <http://codec.name> and codec.mimeType would be the best option. Based
> on http://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml there
> are cases when there is a mismatch between the name and the mime type,
> such as "vnd.vivo" and "video/vnd-vivo". I hope no will ever need any
> of those codecs, but theoretically it is possible.
>
> One piece of warning: duplicate information like this can lead to
> conflicting information orifices in the two fields. I would prefer to
> just use mime types as defined by IANA:
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml.
> note that these are the rtp mime types, not the file mime types, which
> is more appropriate for WebRTC imho.
>
Speaking strictly as a contributor - in RTP, we don't use these names at
all (not visible on the wire). But we *have* to be able to match them to
SDP - and for SDP, they need to be MIME names.

I support having only MIME names.
Received on Saturday, 18 July 2015 10:13:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:45 UTC