Re: [Bug 15861] API for JS interaction with congestion control

But timer for these constraints were not specified anywhere in the spec.
We had a discussion some time back on the same regarding the importance of
timers [1], and folks agreed on it too [2].
And this type of timers may be used not only for the bit-rate or bandwidth
fencing but also for other cases where a similar kind of problem may arise.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Jul/0593.html

[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2013Jul/0600.html

Thanks,
Kiran.



On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:44 AM, <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org> wrote:

> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861
>
> Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> changed:
>
>            What    |Removed                     |Added
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>                  CC|                            |
> adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com
>
> --- Comment #7 from Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> ---
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > [...]
> > This approach is not specific to congestion control. It can be applied to
> > all other constraints as well.
>
> The general mechanism you describe here is pretty much how our current
> constraint approach work (as far as I understand it).
>
> A "fence conditions" is represented by a MinMaxConstraint object [1]. The
> script will be notified when the browser cannot stay within the fence via
> the
> "overconstrained" event [2].
>
> [1]
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html#idl-def-MinMaxConstraint
>
> [2]
>
> http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html#event-mediastreamtrack-overconstrained
>
> --
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are on the CC list for the bug.
> You are the assignee for the bug.
>
>