jgraham
commented
1 year ago CC @jan-ivar
Closed jgraham closed 9 months ago
jgraham
commented
1 year ago CC @jan-ivar
foolip
commented
1 year ago For survey data and web developer demand, in preliminary results from State of HTML 2023, WebRTC was a somewhat common response to the freeform question "Which existing HTML features or browser APIs are you unable to use because of browser differences or lack of support?"
alvestrand
commented
1 year ago The common requirement in WebRTC is that browsers MUST support H.264 Constrained Baseline and VP8. The space of possible H.264 profiles is quite confusing, and there are parameters (max-fs and max-fr) that are usually not generated or parsed for VP8.
Things that could be worked on:
There's a lot of other behaviors that could be tested, but are not so directly related to codecs.
alvestrand
commented
1 year ago Note that https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/pull/36487 - a proposal that allows observing bits on the wire - would make testing codec bitstreams easier.
foolip
commented
1 year ago @jgraham can you confirm if the existing tests are enough to be useful here, or if testing of specific codec bitstreams using a mocked peer is necessary?
fippo
commented
1 year ago Since codecs beyond the MTI VP8 and H264 are optional... can we add tests for codec support gated by assert_precondition? Essentially extensions to https://wpt.live/webrtc/protocol/video-codecs.https.html
gsnedders
commented
1 year ago Since codecs beyond the MTI VP8 and H264 are optional... can we add tests for codec support gated by assert_precondition?
assert_precondition in Interop.
jensimmons
commented
1 year ago Tests Anything with “codec” in https://wpt.fyi/results/webrtc Anything with “codec” in https://wpt.fyi/results/webrtc-extensions Anything with “codec” in https://wpt.fyi/results/webrtc/simulcast
Do you mean this?
Any way to create a better link to the specific tests you are suggesting?
jan-ivar
commented
1 year ago Do you mean this?
Yes, thanks for the direct links!
As to scope, I don't think we meant to preclude "codec" tests yet to be written or improved, if there's interest — in practice we find our tests grow as more implementors implement — AFAIK our WebRTC team(s) haven't participated in interop-20xx before, so we're open to input on how to best organize this.
Anything with “codec” in https://wpt.fyi/results/webrtc/simulcast ... (but there's nothing here)
Sorry, that should have read anything with "h264", "vp8" or "vp9" (we can leave out "vp9" if need be). I originally had "anything codec-related" in any of these specs, but the format of the nomination process encouraged being specific.
jan-ivar
commented
1 year ago There's a lot of other behaviors that could be tested, but are not so directly related to codecs.
I'm open to broadening the scope if there's interest. Just happy to have WebRTC in the running. 🙂
gsnedders
commented
1 year ago Any way to create a better link to the specific tests you are suggesting?
nairnandu
commented
9 months ago Thank you for proposing WebRTC peer connections and codecs for inclusion in Interop 2024.
We wanted to let you know that this proposal was not selected to be part of Interop 2024. This is because we got many more proposals than we could include in this year's project. Note that individual vendors may nevertheless choose to advance work in this area during the forthcoming year. We would welcome this proposal being resubmitted again next year, if necessary.
For an overview of our process, see proposal selection. Thank you again for contributing to Interop 2024!
Posted on behalf of the Interop team.
Description
Video conferencing requires interoperability beyond compatible runtime environments, as it needs to solve negotiation and establishment of runtime audiovisual communication with other user agents directly. Sites and platforms have different codec needs, requiring APIs for customization.
Specification
https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/
Open Issues
No response
Tests
Current Implementations
Standards Positions
No response
Browser bug reports
No response
Developer discussions
No response
Polls & Surveys
No response
Existing Usage
No response
Workarounds
No response
Accessibility Impact
No response
Privacy Impact
No response
Other
Note that WebRTC in general does not show up as a priority on developer surveys as it's generally used by a small number of sites that specialize in video conferencing and related services. However those sites are often very popular and compatibility issues highly visible to users (see e.g. webcompat.com issue reports)