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

Re: Proposal for RTCRtcpMuxPolicy

From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 18:59:16 +0000
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <94D1CA9D-43A3-49AB-932D-A853BF60EFAB@cisco.com>

> On Dec 29, 2014, at 4:38 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
> 
> At IETF 91, we decided to split the bundle policy an rtcp mux policy into separate policies in JSEP (instead of having "max-bundle-and-rtcp-mux").
> 
> Meanwhile, I also created a pull request for RTCBundlePolicy, based on previous discussion on the list: https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/137  (the PR has balanced, max-bundle, and max-compat, but not max-bundle-and-rtcp-mux).  
> 
> So, now we need an RTCRtcpMuxPolicy.  I propose we make it just like RTCBundlePolicy, which is, to add it to RTCConfiguration like so:
> 
> 
> enum RTCRtcpMuxPolicy {
>   "optional"  // RTCP candidates are gathered, but discarded if the remote endpoint can mux RTCP.
>   "required",  // RTCP candidates are not gathered
> };
> 
> dictionary RTCConfiguration {
>   // ... iceServers, bundlePolicy, etc
>   DOMString rtcpMuxPolicy = "optional"; // see RTCBundlePolicy
> };
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, we want this to match JSEP, so we may need to wait to see what JSEP decides are the names for "optional" and "required".  

Looks good to me.
Received on Thursday, 15 January 2015 18:59:46 UTC

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