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

Re: per-DataChannel stats: on PeerConnection or on DataChannel?

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2014 06:29:17 +0000
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
CC: Donald Curtis <decurtis@google.com>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1D1322DB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 18/12/14 21:57, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
> On 12/18/14, 3:20 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>>
>> I prefer B.  LIkewise, I think it makes sense to eventually have
>> RtpSender.getStats, DtlsTransport.getStats, and IceTransport.getStats.
>
> Presuming you mean:
>
> partial interface RTCDataChannel {
>      Promise<RTCStatsReport> getStats ();
> }
>
> then I agree. The getStats API was designed before the proliferation of
> sub-objects like RtpSender etc. so this seems like the proper evolution.

I also think this is the natural way to do it (and presumably we should 
have stats on RtpReceiver as well to maintain the possibility to get 
stats for received tracks).

However, I've not thought through what it would mean in terms of 
document structure (now that we've moved definition of _what_ stats to 
report into a separate document).
Received on Friday, 19 December 2014 06:29:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:42 UTC