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

Re: Spec question: Using settings dictionaries instead of MediaConstraints

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:37:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-2cwsHWtYqJsri-NUHstvsBuCZa5yr1-6TPqVUPB+ysDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, public-webrtc@w3.org
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 9:21 , Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > On 06/19/2012 03:45 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Stefan Hakansson LK <
> stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>wrote:
> >> On 06/19/2012 08:30 AM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> >> On 6/18/2012 3:22 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> >> <fluffy@cisco.com<mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>>  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>     This seems like good proposal, one comment on a small detail.
> >>
> >>     On Jun 15, 2012, at 1:28 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> >>
> >>      >  SessionDescriptionOptions.IncludeAudio = true/false // forces
> >>     m=audio line to be included
> >>      >  SessionDescriptionOptions.IncludeVideo = true/false // forces
> >>     m=video line to be included
> >>      >  SessionDescriptionOptions.UseVoiceActivityDetection = true/false
> >>     // includes CN codecs if true
> >>
> >>     I think these three should be constraints, not settings because a
> >>     given browser may not support any of them.
> >>
> >>
> >> Practically speaking, what does that mean for applications?
> >>
> >> I can conceive of a browser implementing audio but not video.  And a
> >> gateway or other stand-alone WebRTC box/functionality might include JS
> >> and these JS apis for ease of programming (and might be audio-only).
> >> (I'd try to avoid it in production, probably, but even that might not be
> >> needed with modern JS JIT speed so long as it didn't have to tear down
> >> and restart all the time.)
> >>
> >> CN codecs: I dislike them anyways.  :-)  An implementation definitely
> >> could avoid including those.
> >>
> >> Many codecs have built in CN modes. I guess for those it is more a
> question of being able to switch off the VAD.
>
>
> I think we need to focus on VAD not CN. Note all the use cases erased are
> about VAD not CN. Note the text in section 5.1 is only about VAD and says
>
> VoiceActivityDetection
> This is a enum type constraint that can take the values "true" and
> "false". The default is a non mandatory "true".
>
> Many codecs and system are capable of detecting "silence" and changing
> there behavior in this case by doing things such as not transmitting any
> media. In many cases, such as when dealing with sounds other than spoken
> voice or emergency calling, it is desirable to be able to turn off this
> behavior. This constraints allows the application to provide information
> about if it wishes this type of processing enable or disabled.
>

I understand what you are saying, but other than omitting "CN" from the
list of codecs, what other effect do you expect this constraint to have on
the generated SDP?
Received on Friday, 22 June 2012 01:38:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:28 UTC