Resolution Constraints in Web Real Time Communications
draft-alvestrand-constraints-resolution-00
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Harald T. Alvestrand | ||
| Last updated | 2012-08-25 | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-alvestrand-constraints-resolution-00
Network Working Group H. Alvestrand
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Informational August 26, 2012
Expires: February 27, 2013
Resolution Constraints in Web Real Time Communications
draft-alvestrand-constraints-resolution-00
Abstract
This document specifies the constraints necessary for a Javascript
application to successfully indicate to a browser that supports
WebRTC what resolutions it desires on a video stream.
Requirements Language
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Status of this Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on February 27, 2013.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2012 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
Alvestrand Expires February 27, 2013 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft Resolution Constraints August 2012
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Disposition of this text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Usage considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3. Usage examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.1. Examples with GetUserMedia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.2. Possible SDP mappings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
6. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
7.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Alvestrand Expires February 27, 2013 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft Resolution Constraints August 2012
1. Introduction
There are a number of scenarios where it's useful for a WebRTC
application to indicate to the WebRTC implementation in the supported
browser what the desired characteristics of a video stream are.
These include, but are not limited to:
o Specifying a minimum desired resolution for a given application,
in order to control the user experience or resource tradeoffs made
by the browser to favour a particular stream
o Specifying a maximum desired resolution for a given stream, in
order to save some resource (bandwidth, CPU....), possibly outside
of the browser where the browser can't tell that it's exceeding a
constraint
o Specifying resolutions that are a reasonable fit for the current
usage of the video stream, for instance fitting with the number of
pixels available on the part of a device's display surface that is
devoted to displaying this video stream
o Specifying the shape of a video stream, in order to fit the video
onto a display surface without the need for black bars or image
distortion
Similar considerations apply for framerate.
1.1. Disposition of this text
This draft is written in order to get something specific out to refer
to during spec-writing and implementation. The text may eventually
get merged into either the IETF document on SDP usage by RTCWEB, or
the W3C WEBRTC document on PeerConnection.
2. Usage considerations
These constraints are usable in several places:
o As constraints to the getUserMedia call
[W3C.WD-mediacapture-streams-20120628], where they serve to guide
the configuration of the camera obtained, and may influence the
choice of camera.
o As constraints to the addStream call on a PeerConnection
[W3C.WD-webrtc-20120821], where they serve to guide the
configuration of the codec that encodes the video content for
transmission.
Alvestrand Expires February 27, 2013 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft Resolution Constraints August 2012
o As constraints applied to an existing local video stream using the
"change constraints" API, where it may cause the video engine to
reconfigure the device or codec for that particular stream.
o As constraints applied to an incoming video stream using the
"change constrains" API on a MediaStreamTrack, where it serves to
inform the video engine about the desirable properties of the
video track, which may lead to the video engine choosing to
reencode the video and/or signal a remote video source that it
wishes certain constraints to be put in place.
All of the constraints may be meaningful in both "mandatory" and
"optional" forms.
3. Usage examples
See Section 4 for the actual definition of the constraints used here.
3.1. Examples with GetUserMedia
A constraint saying that we absolutely must have a minimum resolution
of 1024x768:
getUserMedia({
video: { mandatory: { minWidth: 1024, minHeight: 768 } }
}, successCallback, errorCallback);
A constraint saying that we'd prefer 60 frames per second, if
available, and if we can get that, we'd like to limit the max
resolution, but in all cases, the screen must be clamped to a 4:3
aspect ratio - 16:9 or odd aspect ratios are not acceptable to this
application:
getUserMedia({
video: {
mandatory: { minAspectRatio: 1.333, maxAspectRatio: 1.334 },
optional [
{ minFrameRate: 60 },
{ maxWidth: 640 },
{ maxHeigth: 480 }
]
}
}, successCallback, errorCallback);
Alvestrand Expires February 27, 2013 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft Resolution Constraints August 2012
3.2. Possible SDP mappings
This document does not specify or constrain how constraints get
reflected into SDP (if they do); that's an implementor decision.
The examples below are thought exercises, based on
[I-D.lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-selection] and
[I-D.alvestrand-rtcweb-resolution].
An optional constraint has been applied to an incoming stream where
both upper and lower are constrained to 320x200. The stream has been
assigned to a hardware video decoder that can decode most resolutions
up to 1024x768, in any aspect ratio, but only if all divisions are
divisible by 4. The incoming stream has SSRC 1234.
Line breaks are added for readability.
m=video
a=remote-ssrc:1234 imageattr:* [x=320,y=200,q=1.0] \
[x=[120:4:1024],y=[100:4:768],q=0.2]
4. IANA Considerations
This document requests IANA to register constraints in the "RTCWeb
Media Constraints" registry created by
[I-D.burnett-rtcweb-constraints-registry]. NOTE: The registrations
assume that this document is updated to no longer have "video" as
part of the name, but have "video" as a field-of-use in the
registration.
The definitions of width, height and aspect ratio are taken from
[RFC6236].
o MinWidth - valid for video. Corresponds to the "x" value (pixel
count) from RFC 6236. Only integer values are valid.
o MaxWidth - valid for video. Definition as for MinWidth.
o MinHeight - valid for video. Corresponds to the "y" value (pixel
count) from RFC 6236. Only integer values are valid.
o MaxHeight - valid for video. Definition as for MinHeight.
Alvestrand Expires February 27, 2013 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft Resolution Constraints August 2012
o MinAspectRatio - valid for video. Corresponds to the "par"
(picture aspect ratio), with "sar" set to 1.0. A 4:3 format
display corresponds to an AspectRatio of 1.3333. Floating point
values are valid.
o MaxAspectRatio - valid for video. Definition as for
MinAspectRatio.
o MinFramerate - valid for video. Corresponds to the framerate
defined in [RFC4566], the "a=framerate" attribute.
o MaxFramerate - valid for video. Definition as for MinFramerate.
The contact person is Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>.
Change control for the registration is with the IETF, as designated
by the IESG.
Note that MinFramerate defines a lower bound for the a=framerate
attribute, which is itself defined as an upper limit; this means that
even if a high framerate is negotiated, the actual framerate used may
be lower due to temporary considerations (for instance CPU or
bandwidth, or simply lack of movement in the picture).
5. Security Considerations
No security considerations particular to these specific constraints
have so far been identified.
6. Acknowledgements
Special thanks are given to Dan Burnett, Cullen Jennings, the IETF
RTCWEB WG and the W3C WEBRTC WG for strongly influencing this memo.
7. References
7.1. Normative References
[I-D.burnett-rtcweb-constraints-registry]
Burnett, D., "IANA Registry for RTCWeb Media Constraints",
draft-burnett-rtcweb-constraints-registry-01 (work in
progress), April 2012.
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
Alvestrand Expires February 27, 2013 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft Resolution Constraints August 2012
[RFC4566] Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
Description Protocol", RFC 4566, July 2006.
[RFC6236] Johansson, I. and K. Jung, "Negotiation of Generic Image
Attributes in the Session Description Protocol (SDP)",
RFC 6236, May 2011.
7.2. Informative References
[I-D.alvestrand-rtcweb-resolution]
Alvestrand, H., "RTCWEB Resolution Negotiation",
draft-alvestrand-rtcweb-resolution-00 (work in progress),
April 2012.
[I-D.lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-selection]
Lennox, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Mechanisms for Media
Source Selection in the Session Description Protocol
(SDP)", draft-lennox-mmusic-sdp-source-selection-04 (work
in progress), March 2012.
[W3C.WD-mediacapture-streams-20120628]
Burnett, D. and A. Narayanan, "Media Capture and Streams",
World Wide Web Consortium WD WD-mediacapture-streams-
20120628, June 2012, <http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/
WD-mediacapture-streams-20120628>.
[W3C.WD-webrtc-20120821]
Bergkvist, A., Burnett, D., Jennings, C., and A.
Narayanan, "WebRTC 1.0: Real-time Communication Between
Browsers", World Wide Web Consortium WD WD-webrtc-
20120821, August 2012,
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-webrtc-20120821>.
Author's Address
Harald Alvestrand
Google
Email: harald@alvestrand.no
Alvestrand Expires February 27, 2013 [Page 7]