W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Update of RTCRtpSender "doohickey" proposal

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 21:54:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3KFgH-UQzbS0jPmO=3X7zNTg2+ALfofP8f5X2DuqDqXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
MSTs are about raw media. They know nothing about encoding, bitrates,
recvonly/sendonly, etc. Jamming such parameters into a MST is a complete
layer violation.

A RtpSender, on the other hand, converts the raw media from a MST into
packets, which then go over a Transport. These packets are then
reconstituted into a MST on the remote side by a RtpReceiver.

Please, let's not rewind 6 months of consensus on the need for doohickeys.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:

> On 4/29/14 7:07 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
>> I was talking about clone-on-RTCPeerConneciton::addStream
>>
>
> Forcing me, as a user, to clone my MST if, and only if, I want to add it
> to more than one PeerConnection seems to have little to no cost to me, and
> seems like a reduction in complexity.
>
> It removes one of the arguments I heard for needing the dohickey. The
> others may be sound, I don't recall them all.
>
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2014 04:55:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:38 UTC