W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Poll for preferred API alternative

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 08:45:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVTCmmdzGmMsDA+XHHE4ZZPDwT22FoT9z8afAAQe-WTAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 29 August 2012 08:15, Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com> wrote:
> Regarding implementing ICE in Javascript, this analysis [1] raises the issue
> that JS may not be able to satisfy the ICE timing requirements.
>
> In the Microsoft proposal [2], there is a JS example demonstrating ICE
> connectivity checking between local and remote ICE candidates:

We determined that the concerns raised with respect to timer
resolution were a non-issue.  The browser can manage the important
part of the pacing, that being the rate limiting of outgoing checks.

Section 6.4 [1] describes the behaviour expected of browsers, specifically:

    Binding requests must be globally rate limited by the browser.
    Any requests that cannot be immediately sent are enqueued.

[1] http://html5labs.com/cu-rtc-web/cu-rtc-web.htm#connectivity-checking
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2012 15:45:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 29 August 2012 15:45:58 GMT