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

Re: Use cases / requirements for raw data access functions

From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 08:35:46 +0200
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Message-ID: <ab54a3e7-7f3d-5cb0-75d8-edcf106c3181@gmail.com>
On 19/05/2018 1:14, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> It sounds like what you're saying is that in our quest to make 
> lower-level APIs, you don't want it to go so low that it's a pain in 
> the neck to use.  Which I can completely understand.  Finding the 
> right balance between easy to use and flexible and powerful  can be 
> tricky, and we should keep your viewpoint (the "keep it easy" one) in 
> mind as we consider the tradeoffs in design.
>

Yes, that is exactly what I mean. There is a long way between providing 
lower-level APIs and having to re-implement the rtp stack in js..

> But I think that's mostly orthogonal to QUIC vs. RTP.

It is not when if we make the decision on how to implement an use case 
based on what is easier to implement for QUIC and then apply it to RTP.

For example, implementing e2ee on the whole encoded frame before 
packetization is trivial to the best for QUIC (or DC or WS), but implies 
that we need to add a new custom payload with an agnostic payload 
packetization when used in RTP.

If it was orthogonal, we would only consider what is easiest for RTP, 
that is implementing e2ee after packetization.

Best regards
Sergio
Received on Saturday, 19 May 2018 06:35:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:41 UTC