- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:03:46 -0700
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEGOyaVkF5tTJVi5DDk6U3ZbifZTHiGQL8mjR_z5pZUmQ@mail.gmail.com>
Here's the PR: https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/234 It adds RtpParameters, RtpEncodingParameters, RtpEncodingParameters.prioity, RtpSender.getParameters, and RtpSender.setParameters. I hope that's not too much all at once. On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:25 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > 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 > spec. > > > > > 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 Thursday, 28 May 2015 21:04:54 UTC