Re: The abysmal state of interoperability for the m-section of SDP

Hello Silvia,

> On 24Aug, 2019, at 22:28, Silvia Pfeiffer <> wrote:
> In the past, we had no interoperability between Firefox and Chrome
> because Chrome supported Plan B (which incidentally worked really
> well) and Firefox did Unified Plan. We waited patiently for Chrome to
> support Unified Plan and rejoiced when it came. But we were out of
> luck. Moving to Unified Plan with Chrome didn't make sense for us,
> because Firefox decided to make secondary streams not use the ID that
> is passed in, but use something else altogether. So we held back,
> because we still couldn't make it work interoperably. (Thanks Firefox
> for not following the standard.)

Since you are claiming that Firefox is not following the standards here it would be very helpful if you could point us at the spec which we are not following.

It is my understanding that track IDs are no longer guaranteed by the spec to be match any SDP m-sections identifiers.
According to the Unified Plan MIDs are suppose to be used for that. It’s hardly Firefox fault that majority of the industry hasn’t switched to that (yet).

Best regards
  Nils Ohlmeier 

Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2019 03:35:26 UTC