RE: New functionality in PR - priority

A question:

sender.getParameters() returns the RTCRtpParameters that were last set in sender.setParameters(), correct?

So setParameters() operates as a transaction that either succeeds or fails.

From: Peter Thatcher [mailto:pthatcher@google.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 2:04 PM
To: Harald Alvestrand
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: New functionality in PR - priority

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<mailto: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>
> <mailto: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
>
>