- From: Singh Varun <varun.singh@aalto.fi>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 13:00:48 +0000
- To: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
- CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Hi Michael,
> On 06 Jan 2015, at 14:32, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote:
>
> On 06 Jan 2015, at 07:13, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>
>> Den 06. jan. 2015 00:14, skrev Singh Varun:
>>> Hi Harald,
>>>
>>> Response inline.
[Snip!]
>>>>
>>>> There are no values for the datachannel stats.
>>>>
>>>> To make this symmetric with RTP, I suggest we add "inbounddata" and "outbounddata".
>>>>
>>> I presume that the stats currently in RTCDataChannelStats will then be split to inbound and outbound?
>>
>>
>> On second consideration, that doesn't make sense. The reason RTP is
>> split is that RTP is unidirectional, while datachannel is bidirectional.
>>
>> Second proposal:
>> The string should be "datachannel". No split.
> Are there counters needed for abandoned messages? Should these counters
> be different for messages which have never been sent or for which at least
> one part was sent once?
>
Are these metrics (abandoned message, etc.) defined somewhere? It would be easier to include them if we can just point to a definition in some existing standards document.
> Best regards
> Michael
>>
>>
>>>
>>> dictionary RTCDataChannelStats : RTCStats {
>>> DOMString label;
>>> DOMString protocol;
>>> long datachannelid;
>>> RTCDataChannelState state;
>>> };
>>>
>>> dictionary ourbounddata: RTCDataChannelStats {
>>> unsigned long messagesSent;
>>> unsigned long long bytesSent;
>>> }
>>>
>>> dictionary inbounddata: RTCDataChannelStats {
>>> unsigned long messagesReceived;
>>> unsigned long long bytesReceived;
>>> }
>>>
>>> —
>>> http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun
—
http://www.netlab.tkk.fi/~varun
Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2015 13:01:27 UTC