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

Re: New functionality in PR - priority

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 16:25:54 +0200
Message-ID: <555F3C72.8020106@alvestrand.no>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Den 22. mai 2015 16:02, skrev Peter Thatcher:
> 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.

That would be very welcome!

I tend to forget where things are supposed to sit if they're not in the

> 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
> <mailto: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
Received on Friday, 22 May 2015 14:26:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:06 UTC