W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > January 2018

Re: other features

From: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 08:10:51 +0000
To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR00MB0139CE4EA105C4ACBF3714AEECE10@CY1PR00MB0139.namprd00.prod.outlook.com>
Sergio said: 

"On a lower level of priority I also think that the following items would 
make sense:

  * SVC support
  * UDP-like datagram datachannels with proper api  (regardless of the
    technology underneath)
  * Control protocol for rtp stream related stuff which would allow
    avoiding having to signal certain events like new streams, mutes and
    stream termination. That could be done using RTCP (BYE is a good
    example) with a few additions."

[BA]  We have a number of open issues relating to events such as muting/unmuting in WebRTC 1.0;  hopefully we can work through those in the normal course of work. 

If there's something in particular that's bothering you, please file an Issue. 

At TPAC, we discussed how SVC support could be added to WebRTC 1.0.

Is this something that you'd like to see done as an extension to 1.0 or only as part of "NV"? 

At various points, multiple applications (and even one browser) have shipped a UDP/RTP data-channel. 

Typically the data-channel is allocated a fraction of the bandwidth available between the peers, so that the implementations I'm familiar with have incorporated congestion control.  

However, such an approach would not handle the full range of scenarios that SCTP (or eventually, QUIC) data exchange could, and it would be unlikely to complete IETF standardization before QUIC.
Received on Thursday, 25 January 2018 08:11:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 25 January 2018 08:11:20 UTC