WebRTC DSCP Control API

[alvestrand]

こんにちはTAG！

I'm requesting a TAG review of:

• Name: WebRTC DSCP Control API
• Specification URL: https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-dscp-exp/
• Explainer, Requirements Doc, or Example code: N/A
• Tests: N/A
• Primary contacts: hta@google.com, thaloun@google.com

Further details (optional):

• Relevant time constraints or deadlines: Planning to experiment in Chrome M72
• I have read and filled out the Self-Review Questionnare on Security and Privacy. The assessment is here.
• I have reviewed the TAG's API Design Principles

You should also know that this is a minor control surface added to the WebRTC spec to split up an existing feature (priority) into two independent components (local prioritization and DSCP codepoint usage) without making changes to already-agreed documents.

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please select one):

• open issues in our Github repo for each point of feedback
• open a single issue in our Github repo for the entire review
• leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify [github usernames]

[alvestrand]

tagging @thaloun

[torgo]

Thanks for this. Can you please write an explainer (see https://w3ctag.github.io/explainers) about this so we can properly evaluate?

[slightlyoff]

@alvestrand: we quickly discussed today and there's a question about what problem this solves. An explainer would go a long way, as would example code. Without some motivation and context, it's hard to understand what this feature is for, who it helps, and what risks we run.

[cynthia]

DSCP isn't disambiguated anywhere in the spec, which I think should be considered a bug. (At least I have not a slight clue what that is.)

[cynthia]

We don't quite know what to do with this issue, and it's been dangling for quite a bit. We'll close it for now as - happy to discuss this in person next week during TPAC if still needs our input.

[dontcallmedom]

There is an explainer for the spec https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-dscp-exp/blob/master/explainer.md (sorry this wasn't pointed out earlier)