+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1090742 +++ VP9 SDP appears to be the same (or extremely similar to) VP8; note that this likely isn't finalized as the packetization draft for VP9 is far from finished. This bug covers the non-upstream (webrtc.org) basic portions of vp9 support; it also doesn't cover things about *when* VP9 should be preferred or switched to/from (which may require allowing accepting multiple codecs, which we don't do yet)

Now has media.peerconnection.video.vp9_enabled to enable vp9 support

Comment on attachment 8570705 [details] [diff] [review] Basic VP9 signaling/pipeline/conduit support Review of attachment 8570705 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Let's add some parse-code testing in media/webrtc/signaling/test/sdp_unittests.cpp for VP9. I'm also pretty sure we'll want some updates in media/webrtc/signaling/test/jsep_session_unittest.cpp (in ValidateOfferedCodecParams and ValidateAnsweredCodecParams). Otherwise, just some nits I think. ::: media/webrtc/signaling/src/peerconnection/PeerConnectionImpl.cpp @@ +914,5 @@ > > + bool vp9Enabled = false; > + branch->GetBoolPref("media.peerconnection.video.vp9_enabled", > + &vp9Enabled); > + Some trailing ws here. ::: media/webrtc/signaling/src/sdp/SdpAttribute.h @@ +1018,1 @@ > class VP8Parameters : public Parameters We have a comment to this effect pretty much everywhere this is used, probably would be better to just rename. VP8orVP9Parameters would work for me, I guess VPxParameters might work too.

Comment on attachment 8570705 [details] [diff] [review] Basic VP9 signaling/pipeline/conduit support Review of attachment 8570705 [details] [diff] [review]: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Does this interoperate with Chrome's VP9?

> Does this interoperate with Chrome's VP9? Given https://code.google.com/p/webrtc/issues/detail?id=4168 (no VP9 packetization support), interop is rather overrated.... We're using the "Generic" packetization code, and it appears they are also (I fixed a nasty bug in it; I haven't checked if they've fixed the same bug in Canary - I suspect so). However, tests using talky.io against Canary show working VP9 in both directions, and working regardless of which side offers/accepts. Note that if Chrome accepts, they accept VP9 and VP8, and so they may try mid-call codec switches (which we'll want to enable depending on load and bitrate too).