W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-orca@w3.org > February 2014

RE: Proposal for controlling RTP header extensions for RtpSender and RtpReceiver

From: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 19:29:11 +0000
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
CC: "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
Message-ID: <43dcb47906464e61942c0a49241f387c@SN2PR03MB031.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Justin said:

“I was thinking they should just be ignored. We could fire some onunknownextensionheader event, but is there any scenario where this would be necessary? Would like to avoid introducing a lot of API surface for corner cases.”

[BA]  Sometimes the symptoms of not configuring the RTP extension won’t be too serious.  For example, if the mixer-to-client RTP extension isn’t configured on the receiver objects, the levels won’t be provided, but the CSRCs will still be there.   However, if the AppId extension is not configured on the receiver, then incoming streams might not be demultiplexed correctly, so that seems more serious.  However, there might be better ways to deal with that than an onknownextensionheader event.
Received on Monday, 3 February 2014 19:29:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:39:24 UTC