New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CNAME and synchronization contexts #94
Comments
Robin's response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ortc/2014Jun/0010.html |
Based on Emil's response, it would appear that developers can live without additional functionality: |
Given that there does not appear to be an API requirement here, I am going to close this. If you feel that is wrong, please reopen and give your idea of the requirements. |
From Robin: So based on this, I suggest we add a “cname" property to the “parameters.rtcp” dictionary. Developer could then override and force a cname on a sender/receiver: and to learn the defaulted value, get the ‘parameters’ object to get the default value: Assuming others think the “rtcp” dictionary is the appropriate spot for getting/setting the cname... |
We need to define the behaviour in the specification for cname. |
How about this for Section 9.6.1? "cname of type DOMString The Canonical Name (CNAME) used by RTCP (e.g. in SDES messages). Guidelines for CNAME generation are provided in [RTP-USAGE] Section 4.9. By default, ORTC implementations should set the CNAME to be the same within all RTCRtcpParameter objects created within the same Javascript sandbox. However, for backward compatibility with WebRTC 1.0, applications may set the cname to an alternative value." |
…3c#66 Added Identity support, as described in Issue w3c#78 Reworked getStats method, as described in Issue w3c#85 Removed ICE restart method described in Issue w3c#93 Addressed CNAME and synchronization context issues described in Issue w3c#94 Fixed WebIDL issues noted in Issue w3c#97 Addressed NITs described in Issue w3c#99 DTLS transport issues fixed as described in Issue w3c#100 ICE transport issues fixed as described in Issue w3c#101 ICE transport controller fixes made as described in Issue w3c#102 Sender and Receiver object fixes made as described in Issue w3c#103 Fixed RTCRtpEncodingParameter default issues described in Issue w3c#104 Fixed 'Big Picture' issues descibed in Issue w3c#105 Fixed RTCRtpParameter default issues described in Issue w3c#106 Added a multi-stream capability, as noted in Issue w3c#108 Removed quality scalability capabilities and parameters, as described in Issue w3c#109 Added scalability examples as requested in Issue w3c#110 Addressed WebRTC 1.0 Data Channel compatibility issue described in Issue w3c#111 Removed header extensions from RTCRtpCodecParameters as described in Issue w3c#113 Addressed RTP/RTCP non-mux issues with IdP as described in Issue w3c#114 Added getParameter methods to RTCRtpSender and RTCRtpReceiver objects, as described in Issue w3c#116 Added layering diagrams as requested in Issue w3c#117 Added a typedef for payload type, as described in Issue w3c#118 Moved onerror from the RTCIceTransport object to the RTCIceListener object as described in Issue w3c#121 Added explanation of Voice Activity Detection (VAD), responding to Issue w3c#129 Clarified the meaning of maxTemporalLayers and maxSpatialLayers, as noted in Issue w3c#130 Added RFC 6051 to the list of header extensions and removed RFC 5450, as noted in Issue w3c#131 Addressed ICE terminology issues, as described in Issue w3c#132 Separated references into Normative and Informative, as noted in Issue w3c#133
From: Emil Ivov emcho@jitsi.org
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 10:25:55 +0200
To: "public-ortc@w3.org" public-ortc@w3.org
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ortc/2014May/0142.html
We have been looking at recording WebRTC conferences lately and have
noticed how Chrome sends different CNAMEs for every media source.
CNAMEs have traditionally been used to determine whether two streams are
synchronise-able so having unique CNAMEs for an audio and a video flow
originating at the same host is kind of awkward.
Do we have a position on this for ORTC implementations? Should they be
encouraged to share CNAMEs within the same session (page). If not, then
should we provide a way for the page to control that?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: