- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 11:32:32 +0100
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 11/29/2017 06:27 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: > I would be fine with defining *two* experimental priorities of say > > parameters.encodings[0].qosPriority = > parameters.encodings[0].bandwidthPriority = > > but if don't think the experiment can redefine > > parameters.encodings[0].priority = > > to mean something different than in means in the non experiment case. That would become an X- prefix problem for turning off the experiment. I thought that at first, but found when I worked through the states that adding an extra control gives no value. There are 16 states (4x4) we want to reach, and with 2 controls we can reach all of them - 4 can be reached in 2 different ways (by having networkPriority unset, or having networkPriority set to the same value as priority). Having 3 controls (qosPriority, schedulePriority, priority) gives 64 states, which means that each of the 16 states we want to reach can be reached 4 different ways - not an improvement. My personal thought is that we'll end up with only 4 states we want to reach (the 4 designated by setting "priority" only). But I don't think we have data to be sure of that, so I want to enable the experimentation, as requested. > ( as a side note, network priority seems like a name that could cause confusion) only if there's something other than DSCP-rules to confuse it with. Is there? > > > > ( Just to be 100% clear, this is send with my contributors to WebRTC hat on an no others ) > > > >> On Nov 28, 2017, at 10:15 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> 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 >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> > -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2017 10:33:06 UTC