Sections 9.4 & 9.8: Quality-related parameters #109

Closed
aboba opened this Issue Jun 25, 2014 · 4 comments

Projects

None yet

3 participants

@aboba
Contributor
aboba commented Jun 25, 2014

There is a question of whether we are expecting ORTC API implementations to support Quality scalability. If not, should we remove maxQualityLayers in RTCRtpCodecCapabilities (Section 9.4) and qualityScale in RTCRtpEncodingParameters (Section 9.8)?

@aboba
Contributor
aboba commented Jun 26, 2014

Proposed resolution is to remove maxQualityLayers and qualityScale.

@robin-raymond robin-raymond added the 1.1 label Jun 28, 2014
@aboba aboba closed this Jul 8, 2014
@robin-raymond robin-raymond pushed a commit to robin-raymond/ortc that referenced this issue Jul 16, 2014
Robin Raymond Added section on WebRTC 1.0 compatibility issues, responding to Issue #…
…66

Added Identity support, as described in Issue #78
Reworked getStats method, as described in Issue #85
Removed ICE restart method described in Issue #93
Addressed CNAME and synchronization context issues described in Issue #94
Fixed WebIDL issues noted in Issue #97
Addressed NITs described in Issue #99
DTLS transport issues fixed as described in Issue #100
ICE transport issues fixed as described in Issue #101
ICE transport controller fixes made as described in Issue #102
Sender and Receiver object fixes made as described in Issue #103
Fixed RTCRtpEncodingParameter default issues described in Issue #104
Fixed 'Big Picture' issues descibed in Issue #105
Fixed RTCRtpParameter default issues described in Issue #106
Added a multi-stream capability, as noted in Issue #108
Removed quality scalability capabilities and parameters, as described in Issue #109
Added scalability examples as requested in Issue #110
Addressed WebRTC 1.0 Data Channel compatibility issue described in Issue #111
Removed header extensions from RTCRtpCodecParameters as described in Issue #113
Addressed RTP/RTCP non-mux issues with IdP as described in Issue #114
Added getParameter methods to RTCRtpSender and RTCRtpReceiver objects, as described in Issue #116
Added layering diagrams as requested in Issue #117
Added a typedef for payload type, as described in Issue #118
Moved onerror from the RTCIceTransport object to the RTCIceListener object as described in Issue #121
Added explanation of Voice Activity Detection (VAD), responding to Issue #129
Clarified the meaning of maxTemporalLayers and maxSpatialLayers, as noted in Issue #130
Added RFC 6051 to the list of header extensions and removed RFC 5450, as noted in Issue #131
Addressed ICE terminology issues, as described in Issue #132
Separated references into Normative and Informative, as noted in Issue #133
6f8216a
@pthatcherg

Can't implementations that don't support it set maxQualityLayers = 0? That way, the JS knows if it's supported or not, and if an implementation does support it, it can do so in a standard way. I'd propose we leave it.

@aboba
Contributor
aboba commented Jul 18, 2014

Justin asked if we could remove it at the last ORTC CG meeting, but it is ok to leave it in.

On Jul 18, 2014, at 12:02 PM, pthatcherg <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

Can't implementations that don't support it set maxQualityLayers = 0? That way, the JS knows if it's supported or not, and if an implementation does support it, it can do so in a standard way. I'd propose we leave it.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/openpeer/ortc/issues/109#issuecomment-49467663.

@aboba
Contributor
aboba commented Jul 18, 2014

Oh, right. Thanks for jogging my memory. I'm fine leaving it out as well,
especially if we've already removed it. It would be easy to add back in if
someone is actually going to implement it.

Either way, it's small potatoes.

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Bernard Aboba Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com
wrote:

Justin asked if we could remove it at the last ORTC CG meeting, but it
is ok to leave it in.

On Jul 18, 2014, at 12:02 PM, pthatcherg notifications@github.com wrote:

Can't implementations that don't support it set maxQualityLayers = 0?
That way, the JS knows if it's supported or not, and if an implementation
does support it, it can do so in a standard way. I'd propose we leave it.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#109 (comment).

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment