- From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:21:24 -0700
- To: Adam Roach <abr@mozilla.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+9kkMCC_a158pvfaUZQxsGN81zYT1iDGbQtZRXXT9Zy4KGpfw@mail.gmail.com>
So, I generally agree with this, but there is one additional point, in-line. On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 3:03 PM, Adam Roach <abr@mozilla.com> wrote: > Coming out of the MMUSIC interim meeting, I wanted to take a step back and > look at the moving pieces that would be necessary to get simulcast into > WebRTC for the 1.0 timeframe. At a high level, we need three things to > happen if this is to succeed: > > > 1. Define a simulcast API in the WebRTC 1.0 specification > 2. Get the simulcast draft in the IETF on a trajectory to finish > inside 6 months > 3. Get the RID draft in the IETF on a trajectory to finish inside 6 > months > > > At the moment, we have a reasonable API proposal on the table (Peter's > "Plan X" seems as good as anything else). > > The simulcast draft is pretty mature. It's been baking for a year now, and > the changelog from -01 to -02 lists only 4 changes: adding RID, adding the > ability to specify codec preference ordering, and two editorial updates. > I would add that there seems now to be broad agreement that using the payload type alone runs the risk of exhaustion. Working through that at the MMUSIC interim took a bit of time, but I think there were several folks who had initially been skeptical who saw the issue in a new light. That's important, in my view, because it clears one of the critical objections to working on RID--whether it is required to achieve scalable simulcast. regards, Ted > > So that leaves the RID draft. Setting aside for a moment the differing > opinions about how much work is left on that mechanism, I think we agree in > principle that finishing that draft in the timeframes required would > provide for a complete solution. > > Does that match everyone's understanding? > > > > Addendum: At the face-to-face interim in Redmond, there was a discussion > around using the currently defined API points (clone/applyConstraints) as a > kind of poor-mans' simulcast. As reflected in the minutes, this approach is > problematic enough with scalable coding that both Justin and Cullen deemed > it "a non-starter." Bernard also described a set of issues with this > approach that made it "unsatisfactory", although the details slip my mind, > and didn't make it into the minutes. > > -- > Adam Roach > Principal Platform Engineer > abr@mozilla.com > +1 650 903 0800 x863 >
Received on Thursday, 15 October 2015 22:21:53 UTC