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

Re: New functionality in PR - priority

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:03:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEGOyaVkF5tTJVi5DDk6U3ZbifZTHiGQL8mjR_z5pZUmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
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

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