RE: New functionality in PR - priority

On May 29, 2015 12:00 AM, "Bernard Aboba" <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
wrote:
>
> A question:
>
>
>
> sender.getParameters() returns the RTCRtpParameters that were last set in
sender.setParameters(), correct?
>

Yes, except that getParameters also returns a valid value before the first
call to setParameters. Otherwise, the get/change/set pattern wouldn't work.

I should probably add text to the PR about that.

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

Correct. You wouldn't end up with half the parameters changed and not the
other half. That would be a mess.

I should probably add text to the PR about that.
>
>
> 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>
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
>> >
>> >
>
>