Re: I made a PR for changing RtpEncodingParameters.priority to an enum.

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 24/07/15 14:44, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> > Following the PR from https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/228, I have
> > changed RtpEncodingParameters.priority to an enum with very-low, low,
> > medium, and high.
> >
> > This is kind of what we decided a long ago about priorities.  But I
> > forgot about it when I wrote the PR for RtpEncodingParameters.priority
> > and made it a double.  This is an update to that.
> >
> >
> > Do we still have consensus for using an enum for priority?  Look at the
> > PR to see how it looks.
>
> Which PR is it? Priority seems to be part of #234 and #241.
>
>
​Sorry, I put in the wrong link.  It's actually
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/259​



> Anyway, I have concerns with the part
>
>            <dt>double priority</dt>
> +          <dd>
> +            <p>
> +              Indicates the relative priority of this encoding, across
> +              all RtpSenders of a given PeerConnection.  When there is
> +              limited bandwidth available to a PeerConnection, higher
> +              prioirty encodings will be sent with more bandwidth, and
> +              lower priority encodings will be sent with less
> +              bandwidth.
>
> in combination with the upcoming "min" and "max" bitrate attributes. How
> should he UA act if they conflict (e.g. a very high "min" and a low
> priority)?
>
> #228 only points at RTCWEB-TRANSPORT and I think that document only
> talks about DSCP marking.
>

​Yeah, that's the part I changed to match what Cullen wrote in
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/228.  So if you were happy with
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/228, you'll be happy with
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/259 because it's the same text.

Sorry again for giving the wrong link the first time.

​


>
> Stefan
>
>