New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Header extension official list review #409

Closed
robin-raymond opened this Issue Mar 11, 2016 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@robin-raymond
Contributor

robin-raymond commented Mar 11, 2016

I think we should review this list:
http://ortc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ortc.html#headerextensions*

And collect any others that are being used here because I know in practice we probably need to implement more than officially required.

@robin-raymond robin-raymond added the 1.1 label Mar 11, 2016

@robin-raymond

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robin-raymond

robin-raymond Mar 11, 2016

Contributor

See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25#page-18

I noticed video orientation is missing. Other ext are useful too even if not officially required yet.

5.2.5.  Coordination of Video Orientation

   WebRTC endpoints that send or receive video MUST implement the
   coordination of video orientation (CVO) RTP header extension as
   described in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-video].

   This header extension uses the [RFC5285] generic header extension
   framework, and so needs to be negotiated before it can be used.
Contributor

robin-raymond commented Mar 11, 2016

See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-25#page-18

I noticed video orientation is missing. Other ext are useful too even if not officially required yet.

5.2.5.  Coordination of Video Orientation

   WebRTC endpoints that send or receive video MUST implement the
   coordination of video orientation (CVO) RTP header extension as
   described in Section 4 of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-video].

   This header extension uses the [RFC5285] generic header extension
   framework, and so needs to be negotiated before it can be used.
@robin-raymond

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robin-raymond

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robin-raymond
Contributor

robin-raymond commented Mar 11, 2016

aboba added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 12, 2016

@aboba aboba added the PR exists label Mar 12, 2016

@aboba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aboba

aboba Mar 15, 2016

Contributor

Should we add Abs-Send-Time to the header extension list (as a non-normative reference)? It is widely implemented.

Contributor

aboba commented Mar 15, 2016

Should we add Abs-Send-Time to the header extension list (as a non-normative reference)? It is widely implemented.

aboba added a commit that referenced this issue Mar 15, 2016

Add abs-send-time extension
Add abs-send-time extension.  Related to Issue #409

@aboba aboba closed this Mar 15, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment