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

Re: A Big Proposal: A way to control quality/resolution/framreate/simulcast/layering with RtpSender

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:44:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUH75iycXhjBBuK5k==UYujy4HS0K_BYYVaocikL3qN2qQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Wendt <chris-w3c@chriswendt.net>, "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:01 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 19 February 2014 14:56, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
> > If you add it to what I have, then it's more complex.  If you add it and
> > then remove other things, then it's less complex.  Perhaps get rid of
> > minQuality and maxQuality with the setup you have, which could end up
> making
> > it less complex overall.  Perhaps it would be a good idea to make a
> > "proposal 2", fill in all the use cases with examples, and then compare
> the
> > two.
>
> Remove:
>   double priority;
>   double scale;
>   double maxBitrate;
>   double maxQuality;
>   double minQuality;
>   DOMString bias; // "resolution" or "framerate"
> Add:
>   double resources; // >0, relative to others (might constrain scope...)
>   Preferences {
>     double framerate; // 0..1
>     double resolution; // 0..1
>     double quality; // 0..1
>   } preferences;
>
> Does that help

?
>

I think we still need scale for simulcast and maxBitrate for cases where
you want to constrain bandwidth even when it's available.    And priority
vs. resources seems pretty similar.

So, to me ​​it's mostly about maxQuality+minQuality+bias vs
frameratePreference+resolutionPrefernce+qualityPreference.  Now we just
need to try and meet all the use cases.
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2014 23:45:52 UTC

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