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

Re: New functionality in PR - priority

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 17:23:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEarWN49kk+tDTxouTCBmsBEPvVAe4ujTNd5KBc_Tf-wQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote:

>  On 5/22/15 10:02 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>  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).
>
>
> What strange Javascript idiosyncrasies? That it's not multi-threaded or in
> need of locking?
>

​The same ones we talked about the last time "many attributes vs. one set
method" came up. ​  The same arguments apply here, and I'm still in favor
of one set method.



>
>
>    Did I simply miss the thread where we discusses this?
>
> ​Note to self: proofread more.  Sorry about that.  I meant "discussed" :).​



>
> I didn't see any discussion either, though an attribute seems natural to
> me. Can setting of priority fail?
>
> .: Jan-Ivar :.
>
>  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).
>>
>> Haral
>
>
Received on Saturday, 23 May 2015 00:24:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:44 UTC