- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:20:04 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <55AF6044.9070208@alvestrand.no>
On 07/21/2015 01:41 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer wrote: > > > On 21 Jul 2015 1:21 am, "Roman Shpount" <roman@telurix.com > <mailto:roman@telurix.com>> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Silvia Pfeiffer > <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com <mailto:silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> > >> I'd suggest just going with a single mime type field to avoid having > >> to deal with all these issues. Mime type is defined as a single string > >> that a lot of things already understand and parse - ripping the bits > >> of the mime type field apart just means that for some things you have > >> to put them back together again and that seems more effort than it's > >> worth. For example, most mime types won't have a rater and a channel - > >> how are you going to fill these fields sensibly then? If you fill them > >> from some other information, how are you going to put the original > >> mime type field back together again? > > > > > > Every SDP media line has rate and audio lines have channels. The > fact that the browser supports L16 can mean that it supports L16 at > 8KHz and 16Khz or it can mean something else. Without the rate and > channel information codec capabilities cannot be serialized into SDP. > > > > P.S. All RTP mime type have a rate. Some support multiple, and do > not list the default rate in > the http://www.iana.org/assignments/rtp-parameters/rtp-parameters.xhtml. > These are exactly the codecs for which rate is required in > getCapabilities result. > > > > OK, what we're struggling with then is that the mime type and params > in rtp are represented as a single string while in sdp they are in > different fields. > For clarity: MIME type and parameters are not represented in RTP (that's a protocol). What we're discussing is how they should be represented in RTP{sender,receiver}.getCapabilities. > In the api we should pick one representation only to expose both. I'm > all about consistency. It sounds like some parts are best parsed out > while the rest ends up in a params string. Is that what you are proposing? > I think that's what *I* am proposing; others may have other opinions. (I'm still mad at English for not having separate singular and plural forms of "you"....) -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Wednesday, 22 July 2015 09:20:36 UTC