W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2015

Re: Al PR for adding various fields to RtpParameters and RtpEncodingParameters

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:23:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUE8kpesSe6c1JzdgX-ZJnno6oQ4TwRXkC9KjEXb857FSw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
wrote:

> On 8/25/2015 8:56 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>> For ORTC, we came to the conclusion that any adjustments to the input to
>> the RtpSender (e.g. framerate clamping) ought to be performed on the input
>> MediaStreamTrack.
>>
>
> Are we then adding a bunch of (duplicative) controls on MediaStreamTrack
> for maxFramerate, etc?   Do we have a PR for that, here or in the
> MediaCapture TF?  Also, I don't necessarily want to down-resolution or
> down-framerate the local instance of the video just because I want to send
> a thumbnail (double so if I might be recording a copy locally); are you
> proposing we handle those cases by asking a second time for access, and
> running two copies of everything through the internals?   Or cloning the
> track so that we can modify one clone and not affect the other?
>
>
​Isn't the that the whole point of being able to clone tracks?  Shouldn't
this work?

var lowFpsTrack = highFpsTrack.clone();
​
​
​lowFpsTrack.applyContstraints(​{framerate: {max: 30}, ...});

Then you can render highFpsTrack locally and put the lowFpsTrack in the
RtpSender.​



> We can have a set of controls on MediaStreamTracks, though I generally
> would prefer for Tracks to be largely containers that pass on controls to
> the underlying source node, not processing nodes. Tracks should be the data
> conduits, hooking sources, sinks and processing nodes together.  Processing
> and control should occur at nodes (sources (gUM/applyConstraints,
> RTPReceiver, canvas, etc), sinks (RTPSender, MediaRecorder, media elements,
> etc) and processing nodes (largely none today, but ctai's proposals will
> give us those as well).   applyConstraints/etc cause the track to affect
> the source node attached to it.  We are stuck with some processing behavior
> tied to tracks, but not much other than considering gUM MediaStreamTracks
> to effectively be a subclass (GetUserMediaStreamTracks) with
> applyConstraints (just enable and a few other bits).
>
> (It's unfortunate in hindsight that we didn't define gUM as providing both
> a MediaSource object (which you can frob; the architectural equivalent to
> RTPSenders/Receivers) and MediaStreamTrack(s), which would be dumb
> conduits.  C'est la vie)



>
> The scale attributes are just for scalable encoding/simulcast, so that
>> multiple encodings can be created from a single input MST.
>>
>
> There is a very clear usecase outside of simulcast we should support: I
> have an HD stream.  I want to send VGA (or smaller). Especially for the
> case where it's not a gUM source, or I want to (per above) display it
> locally in HD or record it.
>
>
>
> --
> Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com
> Please please please don't email randell-ietf@jesup.org!  Way too much
> spam
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 17:24:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:45 UTC