W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

Re: Recap from WebRTC World

From: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 02:12:14 -0400
Message-ID: <51EF703E.9000206@bbs.darktech.org>
To: Göran Eriksson AP <goran.ap.eriksson@ericsson.com>
CC: "<public-webrtc@w3.org>" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 24/07/2013 2:08 AM, Göran Eriksson AP wrote:
>> Hi Göran,
>>     Imagine you wrote a production web conferencing app and customers 
>> are calling tech support saying "It doesn't work" where do you begin?
>>     A good starting point is looking at Skype. Skype provides a 
>> user-friendly UI that gives a quick overview of potential network, 
>> hardware, configuration problems and allows you to drill-down for 
>> more information. I am asking for:
>>   * A user-facing UI that allows you to drill down from a high to low
>>     level.
>>   * Make this functionality available through an API so applications
>>     can collect this information programmatically and, say, refund a
>>     user if a meeting was aborted due to no fault of his own.
>>     One problem I found very hard to diagnose (in development, not to 
>> mention production) is why I was getting smooth video at home but 
>> choppy video at a customer's location. Is the bandwidth too low? Is 
>> the latency too high? Is the router dropping UDP packets? Is the CPU 
>> usage too high (leading WebRTC to drop frames)? Etc... It goes on and 
>> on. The stats API dumps a lot of information (too much for me to 
>> parse quickly, obviously) but even with all this information it's 
>> hard to come up with a conclusive answer to these actions.
>> Gili
> Thanks for Your answer. I have the same or similar idea on what 
> trouble shooting needed in a solution. Part of such a solution is the 
> browser UA and the support it gives via the API, including the stats API.
> There are other components in solution for a service like Skype, such 
> as stats from network boxes, but those are outside the scope of this 
> WG i think.
> Do You agree with me that it sounds as if we should add some 
> bugs/actions with proposals concerning the stats API?


> BTW- I assume You have looked at the stats output from Canary?

     Yes, I have.

     To touch upon Eric's point (separate thread), we can certainly add 
some of this functionality outside of the browser but it remains to be 
seen whether the stats API exposes sufficient low-level information for 
us to reach the necessary conclusions.

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 06:13:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:50 UTC