Re: [rtcweb] Default candidate pool size

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> · Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 12:56:31 -0400

how about just adding the pool size to RTCConfiguration ?

On May 18, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> As far as I know, this has been agreed on, but the W3C spec has
> never been updated to reflect it.
> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
> 
> I think the JS app needs a way to say what it needs in the way of pool size.
> 
> 
> On May 12, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 11 May 2014 17:18, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> My personal opinion is that candidate pooling is useful here and we
> >> should probably leave the default in the hands of the browser. I
> >> could live with 0 however.
> >
> > I tend to agree.  The selection of a default seems like a good
> > opportunity for browsers to optimize.  For instance, a mobile device
> > might choose to defer gathering until it knows that it needs them;
> > whereas a device with a good source of power might prefer the latency
> > benefits associated with early gathering.  No point in us specifying
> > this.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
> 
> 