- From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:08:12 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 06/28/2012 07:00 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote: > > On Jun 21, 2012, at 18:37 , Justin Uberti wrote: > >> >> >> 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? >> > > I don't think it will change the SDP at all in most case - it will > change the behavior of the local audio encoder in the media stack so > that even when it is "quiet", the encoder keeps sending audio > packets. > > This is useful when doing something like music where you don't want > to stop sending audio when things get quiet. It is also required for > E911 calls - note I am not saying we need to take into account all > E911 requirements - I'm just saying this functionality has saved > lives. I imagine some games would want it. For "phone call" like > applications, typically you don't want to enable it because you want > to try and mask background noise from being sent. In audio > engineering terms, one might think of this as causing the "gate" > setting to be set at a large negative number instead of whatever it > is typically set at. > > I'm not arguing that all implementation are required to support this > - I just want a common API for it for the implementation that do > support it. This is a MUST in the use-case/requirement document: "The Web API MUST provide means for the web application indicate the type of audio signal (speech, audio)for audio stream(s)/stream component(s)." > > The functionality is clearly associated with an audio Track but it > still seems reasonable to set it in a create offer or answer which > would mean that it applied to all tracks is the Peer Connection. (I > can be convinced I am nuts on the this last point but that was how I > was thinking about it) > > > > >
Received on Friday, 29 June 2012 05:08:37 UTC