- From: Gustavo Garcia <ggb@tokbox.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 14:24:31 +0200
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPvKHKjOWqRkQ-CVnEThu1Z4qA79nUo7RaS1Z5CGRVEe6fFsVg@mail.gmail.com>
I support Haralds's proposal for #4, #6 and #276. AFAIK all the existing use cases can be implemented if clients send audio levels by default and/or using Datachannels to convey some information from mixer to clients. I understand this is not ideal in some cases, specially for some existing server implementations, but IMO that is not enough to make these new APIs a must for 1.0. On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > We have 3 issues that relate to CSRC information in our tracker. > We've had debate about them - most recently from July 31 to August 18 - > but very few people have contributed, and there seems to be no strong > consensus. > > The tracker issues are: > > #4 Need API to read the CSRC on received tracks > #6 Need API to receive mixer to client audio level information for a track > #276 Control to turn on Client-to-Mixer Audio Level in offers > > The contributors and their (no doubt mischaracterized) positions from > the August mail thread are roughly: > > - Bernard Aboba has called CSRC information "not a must have" > - Cullen Jennings has called CSRC information "useful for a bunch of > things" > - Inaki Baz Castillo has said that "the usecase is **really** big" > - Harald Alvestrand (me) has said that "I don't regard this as an > important use case". > > There was also a spate of debate about this in February, with a few more > participants. > > Given that: > > a) there doesn't seem to be a consensus that CSRC information is important > b) we're trying to limit the scope of 1.0 features that we don't have > consensus to add > c) generation of volume information is hard to retrofit later (old > clients wouldn't generate it) > d) new interfaces for retrieving information are not so hard to retrofit > later > > I'm suggesting the following disposition for these issues: > > #4: We don't add any such API in WebRTC 1.0 > #6: We don't add any such API in WebRTC 1.0. > #276: We find a convenient place to say that implemementations MUST use > this feature (that is, send volume information) if negotiated successfully. > We don't add any API for turning this functionality off in WebRTC 1.0. > > This will give us a situation where volume information is flowing to the > mixer, and the mixer can take advantage of it if desired - and at a > later stage, we can add APIs for reading the information that already > flows in the system on incoming flows. > > Does this seem like an appropriate disposition given where we are? > > Harald > > > >
Received on Monday, 7 September 2015 12:24:58 UTC