5 ms·

> “WebRTC-compatible” endpoints will be allowed to do either codec, both, or neither. Neither?! What? How will that work then?

cjbprime 12y ago
These are video codecs. Presumably an audio-only app (e.g. IP phone) would be compatible too, so that would explain using neither of the two video codecs. WebRTC also has datachannels that use neither audio nor video.
- rurounijones 12y ago
  Seems like a marketing recipe for disaster. "Why can't I see you on you on my webrtc compatible desktop app?!" Like an end-user is going to recognize the difference in terminology.
  - derf_ 12y ago
    This was already-existing terminology in the IETF working-group. A "WebRTC-compatible" device is one that does not conform to the standard, but which can talk to something that does conform to the standard )in whatever limited way it supports). By definition no codec requirements can be placed on it. This was spelled out clearly in the original proposal: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432... The IETF itself of course recognizes that the current taxonomy may not be ideal from a marketing standpoint: http://ietfmemes.tumblr.com/image/102328432749 http://ietfmemes.tumblr.com/image/102328432749
  - qznc 12y ago
    Compare "HD Ready" TVs.
Someone 12y ago
A WebRTC-compatible endpoint must be able to communicate with a WebRTC endpoint, but apparently need not understand it, at least that is what I make of it. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12#section-2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12#se... mentions one concrete example of a WebRTC-compatible endpoint: a WebRTC Gateway that mediates between a WebRTC endpoint and a non-WebRTC endpoint. Vague? Yes. Poor choice of words? Yes (both IMHO)
zenojevski 12y ago
For a proxy, I guess, or a load balancer, a mediator, a monitor, and so on.
Sanddancer 12y ago
I'm reading that as WebRTC endpoints have to implement those two, but there's nothing precluding them from negotiating to use H.265 or Sorenson or Mpeg-1.
TD-Linux 12y ago
WebRTC-compatible are things that do not implement the Javascript API. These include things like single-purpose smartphone apps. A "WebRTC doorbell" was an example given at the IETF. With this proposal, any WebRTC-compatible device can communicate with any browser with video.

cjbprime 12y ago

These are video codecs. Presumably an audio-only app (e.g. IP phone) would be compatible too, so that would explain using neither of the two video codecs. WebRTC also has datachannels that use neither audio nor video.

rurounijones 12y ago
Seems like a marketing recipe for disaster. "Why can't I see you on you on my webrtc compatible desktop app?!" Like an end-user is going to recognize the difference in terminology.
- derf_ 12y ago
  This was already-existing terminology in the IETF working-group. A "WebRTC-compatible" device is one that does not conform to the standard, but which can talk to something that does conform to the standard )in whatever limited way it supports). By definition no codec requirements can be placed on it. This was spelled out clearly in the original proposal: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432.html http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg13432... The IETF itself of course recognizes that the current taxonomy may not be ideal from a marketing standpoint: http://ietfmemes.tumblr.com/image/102328432749 http://ietfmemes.tumblr.com/image/102328432749
- qznc 12y ago
  Compare "HD Ready" TVs.

Someone 12y ago

A WebRTC-compatible endpoint must be able to communicate with a WebRTC endpoint, but apparently need not understand it, at least that is what I make of it. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12#section-2.2 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-12#se... mentions one concrete example of a WebRTC-compatible endpoint: a WebRTC Gateway that mediates between a WebRTC endpoint and a non-WebRTC endpoint. Vague? Yes. Poor choice of words? Yes (both IMHO)

zenojevski 12y ago

For a proxy, I guess, or a load balancer, a mediator, a monitor, and so on.

Sanddancer 12y ago

I'm reading that as WebRTC endpoints have to implement those two, but there's nothing precluding them from negotiating to use H.265 or Sorenson or Mpeg-1.

TD-Linux 12y ago

WebRTC-compatible are things that do not implement the Javascript API. These include things like single-purpose smartphone apps. A "WebRTC doorbell" was an example given at the IETF. With this proposal, any WebRTC-compatible device can communicate with any browser with video.