- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 06:28:56 +0000
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=15861 Kiran <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com --- Comment #8 from Kiran <g.kiranreddy4u@gmail.com> --- 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. (In reply to comment #7) > (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.
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2013 06:28:57 UTC