search

rtcweb-wg / jsep

33 stars 32 forks source link

Should b= be ignored? #144

Closed ekr closed 8 years ago

ekr commented 9 years ago

@juberti The current text says that it should be basically ignored at session level. However the discussion at IETF 92 was contrary to this, I think:


#Slide b= SDP
Lengthy discussion on CT, AT and TIAS...
Magnus: TIAS only has declarative mean, no offer/answer semantic
Roni Even: what is important is the precision you need on the limit (as or TIAS may not be important except if you want precise values)
Justin: for audio bandwidth value in AS might be very higher than with TIAS.
Cullen: to answer Keith's question, I don't think we change the original spec, we just give more information on their use when a browser use them.
Mo : spec should make clear that CT is the sum of all (remote and local senders)
Jonathan: CT originally written for multicast, O/A changed that, CT means all the things
Magnus: I think it would 
Cullen: RFC 3264:  indicate the bandwidth the offerer the would like to receive
Most document should probably be all right.
Ted: 15' left. Should we continue on this or move to next topic?
Cullen, Justin: propose this text and see if people can refine it.
ekr commented 9 years ago

@juberti, I think this is your action

juberti commented 9 years ago

This was the proposal at IETF 92:

Discussion (IIRC) indicated that TIAS should be used where possible. There was some discussion about AS at session level, but I forget how AS differed from CT when used that way. Do either of you recall?

juberti commented 9 years ago

Related to #124

fluffy commented 9 years ago

I thought the end conclusion of mic line was that AS at session level was not useful but I did not go back to listen to recording

hardie commented 8 years ago

@gloinul can you look at the current JSEP draft to be sure the b= and other bandwidth control mentions are correct?

juberti commented 8 years ago

This would affect the handling-a-remote-description section.