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

Re: Use cases / requirements for raw data access functions

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 11:25:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUF9koPo7-tRid8mw=L-UgMm6gPnq3chT63PQPXF2puFBQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 11:35 PM Sergio Garcia Murillo <
sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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..

Yes, that's the tradeoff.  But would it be so bad if there was a low-level
API in the browser and than there were different JS libraries that built on
top of that to give you higher level ones?

By the way, I'm not suggesting re-implementing all of RTP in JS.  But I am
perhaps suggesting that apps/JS do the packetization of the media (which
seems simple for all codecs except h264/h265, as far as I can tell) and
choose what metadata (header extensions) to include.

> > 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.

I think it depends on the codec, but yes, it does conflict with some
packetizations (like h264).

But, like I mentioned, if the JS/wasm is doing the packetization of the
media, then it could choose how it wants to do this.

> Best regards
> Sergio
Received on Monday, 21 May 2018 18:26:02 UTC

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