Re: Call for Consensus (CfC): WebRTC-NV "One-way media" Use Cases (Section 3.10))

What issues are filed?


n 1/26/23 11:42, Youenn Fablet wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 17 Jan 2023, at 21:30, Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> This is a Call for Consensus (CfC) on the WebRTC-NV "One-way media" 
>> Use Cases described in Section 3.10:
>>
>> 3.10.1     Live encoded non-WebRTC media
> 
> This use case seems like a potential optimization to remove the need to 
> decode/encode the content at the RTCPeerConnection level.
> 
> It is also unclear whether there is an issue where the application could 
> try to go largely above the available bandwidth.
> This is something that would be useful to evaluate.
> 
> In terms of requirements:
> - N40 is already feasible. It should probably be precised.
> - N41 is not really a requirement but already an API proposal. It should 
> probably be rewritten in a more agnostic way. The underlying requirement 
> would probably be solved by an API that would directly send/receive RTP 
> packets.
> - N42 is already feasible via WebRTC stats. It should probably be precised.
> 
>> 3.10.2     Transmitting stored encoded media
> 
> The requirements for this use case are not complete enough.
> In particular, there would be a need to handle PLI or FIR, which might 
> not be possible to answer without either reencoding or having a stream 
> with key frames only.
> 
> In addition, this use case seems already implementable with existing web 
> APIs.
> It would good to evaluate what the expected benefits are of this 
> approach compared to solutions using existing web APIs.
> 
>> 3.10.3      Decoding pre-encoded media
> 
> This use case is mainly based on the assumption that JS based processing 
> via WebCodecs is not optimal for speedy processing.
> It would be good to have measurements to understand what perf 
> improvements we are talking about.
> 
> Ditto for MSE, which is already able to support media-over-datachannel, 
> DRM and file playback.
> 
>>
>> The use cases are available for inspection here:
>> https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-nv-use-cases/#one-way-media 
>> <https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-nv-use-cases/#one-way-media>
>>
>> The GitHub repo Issues list is here: Issues ยท w3c/webrtc-nv-use-cases 
>> (github.com) <https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-nv-use-cases/issues>
>>
>> In response, please state one of the following:
>>
>>   * I support addition of the "One-way  media" use cases
>>   * I object to addition of the "One-way media" use cases, due to
>>     issues filed in <link to GitHub issues> 
> 
> I do not support these use cases in their current form.
> 
> There were past discussions where WebTransport was initially thought as 
> a potential solution for similar use cases.
> IIRC, it was said that WebTransport was not able to match all RTP based 
> transport functionalities.
> It would be good to further dive into this area and extract 
> corresponding requirements.
> 
> In general, my hunch is that exposing an API to do direct RTP packet 
> handling would be a better fit.
> Web applications could then either go with RTCPeerConnection, 
> WebCodecs+WebTransport or WebCodecs+RTPTransport.
> 
> 
>> The CfC will last until midnight Pacific Time on February 6, 2023.
>>
>> Bernard
>> For the Chairs
>

Received on Thursday, 26 January 2023 14:44:14 UTC