Re: New functionality in PR - priority

I think that per-RtpSender is the wrong level for priority.  I think
RtpEncodingParameters is the right level.  It's true we don't have a PR for
RtpEncodingParameters, but I can fix that very quickly.

Along those lines, has there been consensus on the list for having
RtpSender.priority as an attribute?  I would be opposed to that for the
same reason I was opposed to making any of the similar settings being
attributes, as was proposed recently.  Even if it's at the RtpSender level,
it should be part of RtpSender.setParameters, so that many like changes can
be made atomically (without relying on strange Javascript idiosyncrasies).
Did I simply miss the thread where we discusses this?

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> just a heads-up (or something like that):
>
> There's a pull request in the queue for adding a "priority" field to
> RTPSender and to DataChannels:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/228
>
> This is to support the priority mechanism specified here:
>
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-transport section 4
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage section 12.1.3
> draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos
>
> I don't think there's anything controversial in it, but it's nice that
> the WG is aware of what's happening when we add new functionality into
> the spec (even when it's been talked about for a long time).
>
> Harald
>
>