Re: WebRTC NV Use Cases from Bernard Aboba on 2018-05-28 (public-webrtc@w3.org from May 2018)

From: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 13:44:56 +0000
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <39B6E71D-CE47-4FD4-99CE-99841447BE9F@microsoft.com>

On May 28, 2018, at 12:15 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no<mailto:harald@alvestrand.no>> wrote:

I regard the current set of objects in the API that have RTP as part of their name as "an API to RTP"... trying to strictly reuse (say) RtpSender
would, I think, be a Bad Idea.

[BA] Yes. RTP concepts are so deeply blended into RtpParameters it is difficult to see how to disentangle them. For example, encodings[] includes SSRCs and Payload Types, not just info relating to encoding, and the RtpSender and RtpReceiver are deeply tied to RTP in their basic operation.

So in practice an RtpSender can only be used to send RTP and an RtpReceiver to receive RTP. sender/receiver.transport can perhaps change the way RTP is transported but that’s about as much flexibility as we have with the RtpSender/RtpReceiver.

Received on Monday, 28 May 2018 13:45:30 UTC