W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > May 2016

RE: PR 637: mimeType clarification

From: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 00:51:34 +0000
To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
CC: "Harald Alvestrand (hta@google.com)" <hta@google.com>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
Message-ID: <DM2PR21MB007551C1FC3E3137C2B67FB3EC740@DM2PR21MB0075.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
One implication of including both the MIME type and subtype would potentially be distinct entries for "audio/ulpfec" and "video/ulpfec".

This would permit a browser to advertise that it supported ulpfec only for audio, only for video (or potentially for both).

From: Bernard Aboba [mailto:Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2016 5:25 PM
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Cc: Harald Alvestrand (hta@google.com) <hta@google.com>; Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>; Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com>
Subject: PR 637: mimeType clarification

Currently, we have mimeType attributes within RTCRtpCodecParameters as well as RTCRtpCodecCapability.

The definition of the mimeType attribute is as follows:

"The codec MIME type.  Valid types are listed in [IANA-RTP-2]."

A question has arisen as to exactly what should be included within the mimeType attributes.

Is this the Media Type (e.g. "application", "audio", "video", etc.),  the Subtype ("ulpfec", "CN", "G722", "PCMA", etc.) or both (e.g. "audio/PCMA")?
Received on Friday, 13 May 2016 00:52:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:16 UTC