W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > December 2017

Re: A very short extension spec: DSCP codepoint control

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2017 00:45:45 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUGwtG_prtjQejhfSjYXNMm8=QEvbu1ZmscrioO6pRyK3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
I like how you made the text so minimal.


It's a little awkward that in order to change the bitrate but not DSCP, you
have to set both priority and networkPriority but set networkPriority to
default.  But it's possible, which is better than nothing.

It sounds to me like adopting the document in the WG is a good approach.
Is there any reason not to do that?

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 4:05 AM Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

> Note: I messed up the IDL - I had specified a default, even though the
> text specified behavior "if it is unset".
>
> Now fixed. Sorry for the confusion caused!
>
> On 11/29/2017 12:38 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> > On 11/29/2017 12:18 PM, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK wrote:
> >> On 29/11/17 11:00, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >>> No - setParameters is called once in both cases.
> >> Got it. The spec says:
> >>
> >> 'If networkPriority is unset, the DSCP markings of the generated packets
> >> are controlled by the priority member.'
> >>
> >> But networkPriority has a default ("low"), can you then really say it is
> >> unset?
> > I realized that for this to work, networkPriority has to be nullable (no
> > default), so it doesn't have one.
> >
> >>> Den 29. november 2017 10:41:24 CET, skrev "Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK" <
> stefan.lk
> >>> <http://stefan.lk>.hakansson@ericsson.com>:
> >>>
> >>>      On 28/11/17 18:20, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> >>>
> >>>          Picking up on a post-Singapore action item:
> >>>
> >>>          I've written a very short (VERY short) spec for an extension
> to
> >>>          webrtc-pc that allows one to control the setting of
> packet-level
> >>>          priority separate from queue-management priority.
> >>>
> >>>          This is at https://github.com/alvestrand/webrtc-dscp-exp
> >>>
> >>>          Best starting point is probably the explainer:
> >>>
> >>>
> https://github.com/alvestrand/webrtc-dscp-exp/blob/master/explainer.md
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      for my understanding (looking at the examples), is it right that
> the
> >>>      order you do things in matter, i.e.
> >>>
> >>>      pc = new RTCPeerConnection();
> >>>      sender1 = pc.addTrack(track1);
> >>>      sender2 = pc.addTrack(track2);
> >>>      parameters = await sender1.getParameters();
> >>>      parameters.encodings[0].priority = "high";
> >>>      parameters.encodings[0].networkPriority = "low";
> >>>      sender1.encodingParameters.setParameters(parameters);
> >>>
> >>>      would give "low" networkPriority while
> >>>
> >>>      pc = new RTCPeerConnection();
> >>>      sender1 = pc.addTrack(track1);
> >>>      sender2 = pc.addTrack(track2);
> >>>      parameters = await sender1.getParameters();
> >>>      parameters.encodings[0].networkPriority = "low";
> >>>      parameters.encodings[0].priority = "high";
> >>>      sender1.encodingParameters.setParameters(parameters);
> >>>
> >>>      would give "high" networkPriority (since .priority = "high"
> overrides)?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>          The question now is - what now?
> >>>
> >>>          Possible actions include adopting this in the WG, asking for
> adoption as
> >>>          a WICG spec, or keeping it as an individual contribution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>          What do people prefer?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>          Harald
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
> >>>
>
> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 7 December 2017 00:46:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 7 December 2017 00:46:25 UTC