W3C WebRTC Working Group, 18 Sep 2023

Previous Meeting

Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: WebRTC Working Group Meeting at TPAC 2023

Description

See https://www.w3.org/2011/04/webrtc/wiki/September_12_2023 and https://www.w3.org/2023/09/12-webrtc-minutes.html

A

A

Because that commits your your.

B

A

To the patent policy.

A

There's a Code of Ethics and professional conducts that you are supposed to be supposed to have read at the airport that be reasonable, is not a bad expansion.

A

B

A

It for you, it.

B

A

A

Required to wear masks at all times, that's true.

A

And if you and you're supposed to do a daily covet tests, that's okay! There's.

C

Kids available.

A

At the technical and there are labels stickers that we can put on the events saying how close you want people to get and if you see people wearing stickers perspective.

A

In other words, be careful thanks.

A

We're here has been has a link to this folks, so if you haven't found them yet.

A

And, of course, we have the standard question to.

B

A

D

I've started taking notes on IRC since I'm, not in the room, be pretty good if someone could actually at least make sure I'm, not Mis, minuting or missing importances.

A

The frontier for a secondary Square.

A

This morning,.

A

Future schedule, meetings, October, November December, so U.N is going to take the most. In addition, results.

A

So this is our schedule for the meeting. So that's what we're gonna need a guaranteed 4 30 today. Thank you as a joint meeting with the ssegg um Thursday 5 to 6 30.

A

and there's a web track meeting where the media Revenue.

A

On Friday, the people who have left things on Fridays we'll see we'll see how it goes. Unfortunately, there was no room in the middle of the week for them.

A

B

A

Is breakout sessions and a few ones that it.

B

A

B

A Weber to see use.

A

Case and requirements so the high demanding real-time communication scenarios: it's not clear what their ideas are, but it's at 11 to 12 on Wednesday.

A

And there's a little bit different document that you can read before hdr on the web is kind of interesting. Just because it's a make some demands in my angle. They called ecosystems and I use the spelling.

A

So that's some late on Wednesday and.

C

There's an IDF link.

A

Thing for the work called exercise formats such four to five on planet on Wednesday that was actually a bit about certain standardizing and putting on The Wire the method that produced by web podets the way that it's not linking to how it's important in order to keep.

A

Of course, it would have been nice if these were compatible somehow, but we'll.

B

A

A

When using soon today, not our regular thank you Google mates so.

A

We're using the we'll be using the array stand tool again soon to get on as big as cube.

A

And if you're using zoom in the browser affecting you, what you will it's actually using web products or RTC data, so you're trying out and open it stack, then what sir other people are using them on the video conference.

A

If you have a compatible browser, of course,.

A

And remember to state your name when you're speaking, especially with masks on there, it's not that easy to tell Who You Are.

A

So that was the introduction.

A

With my schedule already so this is the agenda. Important thing to notice is the lunch break we're breaking at one and recommending it too.

A

Otherwise, we have a slot at four which is kind of set aside for follow-up on those things that where you went over so that will be decided by the chairs and sometimes sometime before that.

A

B

A

A

I was trying to be ridiculous about the time boxing, because experience shows that some topics have a very large ability to dig into a hole. But that's quite good and I mean to dig out the gap so.

C

Once once we're there.

A

Once time is up we'll stop discussing about it, possibly scheduling for it for the the next session.

A

A

I'll spend a few minutes talking about this statement of the working to make sure that people are.

A

On the same line, so what I'd like to see have succeeded in evidence initial missions, you can now set a video and audio connections with reasonable quality between basically in the browser.

A

The dominance busy platform is we're about to see multiples over our people.

A

It's also been used for a lot of things that are not videoable, contrasting, for instance, the way for recording, there's another Explorations available web platform and so on. But apart from the usage of that was mentioned of web products, these have not achieved significant performance so same and again.

A

Which repels my which activities have had activities since the last people capture Main? We're not adding your functionality until they're about array, but we have some something similar to is.

A

A

Specific devices.

A

And the people who are most needed to say they needed materials.

A

Be departures extension such thing quite active, but it's basically an only plan for new ideas, remember to CPC fixing, books and merging some things from extensions, and we have introduced further a.

C

A

Of marking up changes.

A

Yes, sir, here's what the requirement, what the.

B

Equation says: here's what the new version says.

A

That's a pain to manage, but uh it works that it's possible to say that this is their true standard, and this is.

A

The work group.

A

Set it's behaving much like a learning standard and that we have stuff and maybe leads them so try to make simple and simple.

B

A

And simple to figure out and of course we have the big discussion on Weber as a use case.

A

B

Call the transform.

A

Your functionality we're going to discuss that expensively.

A

We have the Weber well, which I've been thinking in the key Direction by Samir I've met where the government didn't quite fit so I guess I'm going into library is extension system. You might want to kill off the emergency eyes at some. The document at some points the need is there was the direction is different.

A

This platform processing affects the faces, and so on, there's something conversation with the media. Working group I was listening to the the yesterday about the video filters which.

A

Simply stronger to our record books that they can quite figure out how they fit together.

A

Sorry about that and, of course, key capture which is not impressive in the newly established SSC team, so we haven't joined dating a person. Now we have a bunch of things that haven't changed very much. Did you get a chance for me? They got a record from Elemental image. Priority competence, as they say necessity has been implement, that's a good thing, so they haven't changed it much and lastly,.

A

Some of these are unchanged because people are using them. Nobody cares to open them up again.

A

A

If they should do some sorting on that category, there.

A

So that's the end of this right where I have for current status of the group and the 10 minutes to the end of child, so comment commentary he said should have been on that on those lights and isn't it.

A

A

And uh I was wondering with her initially for eh them and moving to make media extensions or tag them as broker for contact recognition do something to actually uh okay, let's put some info to find right next.

A

I don't know I think we should done.

D

uh Yeah, so let me first maybe reply to your instrument and then I'll bring up the documents. I want you to bring. uh So yes, you and um I agree with you. We need more triaging efforts on media capture main uh without putting him on the spot. I think Henry has that in his to-do list uh and I agree, some of them might be move to V2. Some of them might be closed as no longer Raven, but but that's work that needs to happen before we can move to the to the next stage.

D

The comment I wanted to make was about the previous slide. If you can scroll back.

D

Yeah, so in several of these repos, we received comments from the community asking about progress on the favorite. uh Since your request that hasn't received attention, which to me seems uncomfortable I, think part of it is that indeed we don't have anyone that feels uh responsible or other many little for for those, but um yeah I would prefer if he didn't fall into complacency for for these people and make sure that we had a FTR drivers or each others.

E

So um hello Jan over here, just wanted to chime in that. As far as I know, for me to capture main, there are no significant outstanding issues with the recent removal of the the device IDs for permissions. So if anyone feels that there's a significant issue, uh please state so in the issues, otherwise we'll I'm late in doing a triage run of of those issues.

E

A

Yeah once one sticky issue, which is about internationalization, which is that the.

C

International organization says.

A

That we don't have a solution for language and directional for human readable identifiers for devices foreign.

A

So, two years now, we still don't have a have a recommended, the same pattern that we can follow, satisfied that defense I personally think.

B

A

That's a situation that means that racism through that possible.

A

A

Let's see never happens on the Queue I think that's mistake in the world.

A

And we can move on.

A

F

Okay, thank you, everybody. uh This is Bernard and also various slides will be handled by Harold and other uh folks, so uh just picking up from where we uh left left it in May and July. um There were a few open questions that I'd like to get answers uh from the group on. We did talk about these in July, but one was the relationship between this stock and explainers. Next.

F

um And the question was whether should explainers link to the use cases uh that potentially could clarify whether an API proposal is solving a use case. My recommendation that I'd like to get some feedback on is whether explainers I'm recommending that explainers and API proposals can link to the use cases, but this not be required.

F

And no links back the other way, foreign. Let me put it this way. Are there objections to this recommendation.

F

Okay, next one is defining the relationship between this stock and issues next slide.

F

So the question is: should a use case link to related issues and the advantage is links, you could link the requirements to specific issues which require resolution. We do do that in one or two cases, uh uh basically linking to issues raised in the CFC or to the CFC summary, but it's it doesn't occur in every every case. Only when we have um uh requirements that are still the subject of uh still in progress to make clear what they are. Any objection to this.

F

And I think we'll see in a minute why that might be helpful, but um it just just helps to get the state of The Proposal. Okay, the last one is the relationship between this stock and API proposals.

F

Next, so here um we have an API proposal and should a use case linked to those proposals that could clarify whether a use case has proposals and links to use case to a proposal where you can track progress. The recommendation here is API. Proposals can link to the use cases, but we shouldn't require the use cases to link to the API proposals.

F

Other objections to this recommendation.

A

Use cases should not be required beneath proposals.

A

If you have any strong use cases to API proposals, that means that every time you're, you can decide to go.

B

For a different data.

A

That's that's a beautiful Journey. So what was making use cases so.

F

What would you recommend Harold.

A

Thanks so the issues that we had on paper stuff, but uh if we, if we want the UCS to be a very dynamic, that is this number.

F

Do you have a recommendation.

A

I'm going to say that use cases should usually not think.

F

F

Anybody object to Harold's recommendation.

F

Okay, all right uh now on to the next slide and the actual extended use cases. So we're going to talk about uh two main sections of the document. Today. One is 3.6 funny hats, a little bit of implementation feedback and then we're going to talk about section 3-2, which is alola in the streaming section.

F

uh Next, so I guess Harold. This is your slide.

A

Yeah, so somebody has implementation and something else is that textual for all this all the stuff that says we take what comes up from the out of the camera or other source and decorate it. Somehow. This can make huge background replacements.

A

Skin tone attachments uh most.

G

Most reduction.

A

Decorations, like the families original funniest and what they found is that in a considerable number of cases, it's useful to send information from the Entertainer is doing the modification Downstream with the video saying that it's a this processing has been applied for even sending information that says that I've.

H

C

This processing.

A

And if you want to do further processing, here's the information that I have gathered that you you may need.

A

For instance, we have Hardware face detection that might need to send this information down to another particular processing. That's that's more accuratives.

A

Outline face offline for background replacements or, in my post, the optional background work, either in this social device or even a endpoints, um in order to make sure that none of these have only one of these Supply.

A

Be able to send the information about the background.

A

So that means the entire information onto the frame which makes the frame not comply, because that was put on Planet Fitness.

A

So that means that we need.

B

I

A

Association formats, that is notes the standard frame format, and that means that we need to sdp negotiation to say that both parts understand this design as having the extended dispatching the economic thing to appropriate processing too generalize.

B

A

Examples control the decoding of the part of the frame that this video.

A

A

But this is the use case description, so this is appropriate for that use case. There's a focus in that use. It.

A

F

um So Harold, oh will, will it be a PR for adding requirements to the funny hats use case I think we did talk about that at one point: I.

A

Can I can take on the action items like such such a requirements?.

F

And I guess we'll also have a section on metadata which is related to this right. The the next session we'll cover that okay.

F

B

A

Yeah flip side to see the see the Android security.

D

Did you have a question, something on which you wanted uh approval or.

A

Mainly that the working of a case that there are some cases of funny acts where we need to send additional health events.

A

Thank you for coming to to say which kind of Middle River or kind of applications, because with Sunny Heights, we know the metadata, it can be very abstractable and maybe even its departments for XR or these kind of applications.

A

It could be used like giving details about right because it's a different problem, but we've exposed my expectations of that awesome. But we haven't gotten to the point.

H

A

A

Someone is actually preparation, declaration stuff and that is pursuing immediately.

A

Also, like you said for the background or you like to have like multiple levels right at different places, you think the metadata would contain information where, where the effect took place, whether it's in our GPU or the npu forward, totally somewhere above right and also the levels or.

F

Is that reju? Yes,.

A

B

A

Are we mainly thinking applications, specific metadata or standardization, specific metadata pick up?

A

That's a good question: I have the method I've seen so far has been application specific and then I don't see the need for application personally going away, even if there's other sometimes.

A

I think that's, it makes the most sense. It's.

A

Better I think we have the appropriate control mods in the other places in the pipeline. It's a it does mean that I mean if the application specific then I will almost by definition, just doesn't do those things.

A

So if we need interoperation, then we need to extract the metadata analysis that we need information now.

B

E

Hi uh janova here um sorry did I mess up. I can't find to see him the seem to find the race hand, symbol and zoom, maybe I'm missing it, but reactions.

E

Oh, thank you. uh Yes, just a quick question that um for funny hats, I mean the sdp negotiation seems to assume that we need to modify metadata in frames and for the purposes of adding metadata.

E

Another approach might be to add some kind of synchronization info to data channels, for example. So um that's the two ways to add metadata, so I'm wondering if that presupposes a solution, but um some detail under the actual use cases that would require metadata on frames. I think would be helpful.

I

A

Think the issue with data channels is that you're not objective that the daily Channel date that has been received before the RTP data, and you want to correlate the timestamps with the data.

E

Right yeah, some kind of time, stamping information would be necessary for for that approach, that that makes sense, but the the com, the the detail about having it before the frame I think, is useful to clarify the need for this thanks.

F

Oh yeah, so the next step I think is, is to get a PR um to articulate the requirements for this. For the for the minutes, I think.

A

A

F

So uh just uh to bring everyone up to date, we have the section 3.2, which has two major use cases, one on game streaming and the other on low latency broadcast. With fan out. We had a CFC on this originally starting in January uh and uh was summarized, and uh we did have consensus for these use cases, but we had some issues, most of which have been closed. There are two open, so we're going to try to uh get the get uh closure on those two uh today.

F

F

um So we mentioned the first of the use cases in section. Three two is game streaming, and this is a summary of the requirements we have so far. Basically N15 36, 37 and 38.

F

F

Next slide, all right, so we, as I mentioned, we have some open, two open, Major, open issues. One is issue 80, the other is issue 103, and then we have a PR to talk about, which is to clarify uh some of the things in I. Think uh for the for game streaming requirements uh which uh we will have some further discussion on. Okay, next.

F

So a little bit about 80.. So what is what is it issue 80 about um so issue? 80 has been about uh well, one of the things in gaming is that you can have uh things like spatial audio is becoming interesting and so to do these new codecs people need access to the raw audio data. They are doing this today in wasm.

F

There's a couple of examples to that, but there's they're doing this using a hidden support for l16 and browsers rather than official mechanisms, and so pippo suggested that an issue be opened and one was was opened in issue 80 to figure out if, if there's something that should be in the standard, rather than this kind of uh hidden, hidden support, l16, which is actually quite popular, um and so this is the discussion we've had so far.

F

uh Harold said: hey, couldn't we use media capture transform for this, and uh there are also some other issues potentially relating to wasm codex I, think some of which Harold just talked about. um So this is what issue 80 is uh next slide.

F

And so the question is: should we add a requirement for access to Raw audio data, um I, guess that would be? Do we need something else?

F

um As I mentioned this kind of uh hidden functionality, the l16 is quite popular and it's it is uh important for for gaming for things like spatial audio um and then Harold just talked about uh some some other aspects of this. So I would like to get feedback from the group about uh where, where we should go to uh address this raw audio data requirement, which I think is probably real for game streaming, apparel.

A

I have a couple of questions about this big one. Remember the first one is of course: what's this I mean it's 16 years.

A

F

Yeah I think, uh if you we go back to the original issue, I think it's more of a sender side thing than a receiver side thing, but there are some receiver side requirements because it's going to be a different codec, like you've mentioned.

A

Yeah so uh the.

F

Customer for the.

A

Case, that's also it's requirements which.

H

A

A

A

Requirements is identical for the previous track.

A

Right, um the title is not right. Access to the data, that's not the target. The target is applicable products.

A

That's basically the requirement, but that's what you want to try to solve that should be clarified there in this slide.

A

Maybe I'm missing something else, but it's it's something about it because, except for your data, your workplace is provided to do that and stand upside inside much.

A

Just adding the yeah.

A

It's uh yeah. Let's call this is one solution: it's how do you like web connects into a black manager? Okay, but I think haven't. We already talked about that the Nissan. This sounds like a solitude.

A

I was wondering if they're the same.

A

I think it's specific to you. So that's one thing.

A

H

A

You and the current platform is important for some allows you to work around.

A

Solution or issues with technical reasons we want to solve that I guess it's yeah.

A

So should we name this issue to the flag of products.

F

I couldn't couldn't really hear that very well? Are you saying uh is I guess one big question is: does this issue need to be uh addressed for this use case this low latency, or does it go somewhere else or.

B

F

It's come up yeah. My.

A

Question is that it's not linked to loaded specifications.

A

We have a requirement for foreign.

A

A

B

Sort of different use case.

A

Meaning is somehow behind this use case.

A

And then release the requirements, but what we needed to fulfill everybody thanks.

A

It's also not clear to me whether you're talking about non-store now connects or whether we're talking about stomach connects.

A

From the platforms there's.

B

No difference between.

J

I I: uh this is Peter. I raised my hand, I, don't know if it's seen.

F

A

A

That's it doesn't matter.

J

I just wanted to say I think I agree with what Harold was saying, that the desire to use a codec, a different audio codec, perhaps even a custom, one, a proprietary one, a machine machine learning based one- is a very common desire across many use cases. So it's not streaming specific.

F

Is there a existing use case or do we need a new one for that.

J

I don't know, but if we don't have one, we should.

A

Record yourself as well, so there we are talking about.

A

You need to just like: we need to justify that using the NetApp.

J

I think that there are lots of reasons why the data channel is not good enough for doing audio, for example the congestion control or the existence of lots of RTP endpoints that you want to be able to be compatible with.

A

A

Get some non-stop codex, it's.

A

Which is a standard, but it's not supported by relatives because with family.

A

So we've got yeah on this section, but I think we have two action items here. One has to detach is unique from the low lens use case.

A

To create a new use case that this specifically for learning all your products, which needs to specified what what the requirement behavior is. um Okay, what we did and why we need it.

A

So whenever you think you can think of sketching of the the use case for uh practical products, yeah.

F

um We can we can do that in a separate use case. I guess um so just uh actually would be useful to put that resolution in issue. 80.

F

Okay, uh next slide.

J

Sorry, sorry before we move on, uh is that just an audio thing, or should that also Encompass video.

F

um For the it it is just audio for, as it related to the comment on the on the uh streaming use cases, um although um yeah I mean assuming, for example, that I mean hebc is quite popular in streaming, but assuming that eventually gets added to webrtc I think that would have been the major thing that people would have tried to do a new try to do a custom codec for, but uh that was about it.

F

A lot of uh the the main things for audio with this spatial audio and then also AAC for the low latency streaming is pretty popular anyway, uh but but in the other use case we might do. It might also be video, but we can talk more about that.

F

A

Difference between a video is that and with the audio, we need to um debate on whether whether application of their breakout box.

A

A

So a breakup box is the existing interface, so The Wrong video.

B

A

The complexity is different from uh in terms of feasibility of statistics.

A

A

In my hacking, the city for attendance for a health system and checking the things were, three parts are.

B

Still, the still like.

B

F

So this is issue 103. This was some feedback from the UN, so we want to talk a little bit about that as well. uh One of the questions here was the term low. Latency appeared somewhat big, we're going to have a discuss a little PR to hopefully clarify this, so next slide, okay, so uh well uh so here's. um Basically uh we have a n37 which relates to Performance, and it's not all very specific.

F

It's just talking basically mostly about video performance, so potential ways to address this would be either to leave it alone or to add, replace it with more specific performance requirements. We have a PR 118 along those lines where there's more discussion and we'll I think get into it. When we talk about that PR, the common in n38 was the requirement was relating to differ bucket Target, and it is correct that that our requirement is partially Satisfied by that um as I we mentioned earlier, we're not going to necessarily link to the apis.

F

um If that helps I guess we could do it to say hey that we think digital brother Target is the solution to n38, but recommending no action to do that. At the moment, any comments on this.

F

Let me put it this way: are there objections to the recommendation of no action on uh to link in 38 to Jitter buffer Target.

A

The word given the discussion on what, thanks to what to earlier right, the.

F

A

Foreign would seem to be to write them explainer, saying.

B

That it's a digital Target satisfied.

A

And satisfies and 38. 65.

F

Right, so that would that would go in the other document rather than in this document right.

F

Okay, so if we can put that down as a resolution to to I guess it would be Weber to see extensions uh to add a note there rather than here, um and then we can go on to discuss the specific performance requirements in PR 118 which we'll get to in a minute. Okay, next.

F

All right so uh do we have a presenter for PR 118.

I

Oh yes, I'm here.

B

Yeah, this is Sun.

I

uh This is about clarifying the low latency game streaming requirement uh as I presented last uh meeting the basic National for the cloud gaming is we we, the cloud gaming, is more required, continuous visual feedback uh to the usual input, which means uh this application requires more lower latency based uh visual input.

I

Also, the cloud gaming requires defining low latency kpi from click to pixel latency, which is a little bit different from glass to glass latency, as in other applications. Also, the cloud gaming requires uh a latency lower than 150, which is more preferable by our observation from a lot of Gamers out there. Also, the cloud gaming requires.

I

A rather faster recovery than uh video freezing- this is also related with the continuous video visual feedback, uh so also for the latest perspective, it's more much more important to have a continuous rate, consistent latency than fluctuations, which is uh also based on our observation or expectation from the gaming perspective. So to combine everything we want to have a ultra low latency with a faster recovery to provide a better crowd. Gaming experiences so uh next slide. Please.

I

So we Define uh four requirement from n48 to and 51.

I

We have added this full requirement, uh and this has a little bit more details in the description part so uh first and 48 for recovering Bridging, the node keyframes, which is uh based on uh we already filed the issue on webrtc uh project.

I

So this is uh this: by having this issue reserved, we can support a video decoding recovery using uh the frame containing in infrared macro block or coding units, so which is the basic issue we filed for having more clear, more accurate frames, information from sender to receiver.

I

By having this implementation, you can provide more uh faster recovery by using the donkey frames.

I

I I think we can discuss uh the issue after explaining all the items so and for tonight, on 49 is about uh loss of decoder, encoder synchronously notification, so we can based on this information, we may need to have ipsi reference frame uh selection. Indication I think this can be discussed further in the next slide, but it has been uh implemented by the web inside of the webrtc, but it got deleted around March 2017.

I

So we may need to have this implementation for having this feature, but we can discuss further in next slide and regarding the n50 configurable rtcp transmission interval. Right now we have webrtc, send net delay millisecond as a field trial, but we also want to have uh set the transmission interval for transport wide rtcp.

I

That is our expectation to implement this feature. Lastly, n51 is to improve the uh control. I think it might be related with the previous uh requirement as n38, but it is more much more a little bit more details uh about controlling the zero popper.

I

We may need to consider the render pipeline I I I I, find uh we found one chromium issue about low latency render mode which is uh uh referenced in this slide, so I think that's uh those four new requirements might have to implement uh improve the current Uh current experience of the game streaming.

I

Okay, go to the next slide so and, as I said, I am 48. I am 49. uh We may need a ipsi I. Think this slide added by pod art, you wanna, yeah, yeah, sure.

F

Basically, uh the RFC 8834 already recommends rpsi. So essentially, uh this is a the ITF already has this requirement for the stack. So uh the issue is not whether rpsi should be implemented. This 8834 already says that, but there's some practical issues which are on the next slide, so next slide yeah. So um we have this document, which is in call for adoption and itfab core relating to hebc and webrtc, uh and in Issue 13 was filed relating to rpsi support because hebc does support.

F

Rfc 7798 does include support for rpsi, and so uh a little bit of there's been a debate on that on that issue um and, as you said, it was originally in web in live web RTC, but was removed in 2017.

F

It was implemented for VPN and bp9 um and uh has was was taken out there um and currently lipo urgency doesn't support rpsi, because that code was removed um and also there was there was some effort previously to try out LTR um and they've done a instead of our PSI did a custom rtcp message, so the the bottom line is that there's nothing. The ITF recommends rpsi, but there have been some practical difficulties in live web art. You see um so, but there's an open issue.

F

If we can figure out a way of addressing this uh within the code base in a way that can be implemented, um there's no there's no there's. No. uh Let me put it this way. The the w3c requirements are not an obstacle and the ITF recommended. There's standards are not an obstacle here. It's just figuring out how to do this in a practical way within the within the code base, so I'm not sure that we need a requirement for it. Given that the itf40 recommends it.

A

um Would there be a case where.

A

Or should it be next to previous agent, it's a sideways.

I

Okay, the question I understood was: um should the application control the ipsi or the usual agent should control the ipsi?

I

A

Yeah, that's the question. Yes,.

I

Okay, uh yeah I, think uh uh I think we can uh set the application based on our proposal. We want application, can control the ipsi.

F

Well, uh at least with STP monitoring right, you can always say you can always negotiate it or not like any other feedback. So that's you know. That would be the way you would do it assuming it was even in the library to see.

B

A

I

uh Can you repeat, uh I I, couldn't hear clearly.

A

H

Were saying that.

A

H

Anybody constants you.

A

Might need to use the sdp mentally.

A

That's the case, then we tend to prefer, including apis.

A

So if I'm still not sure whether we want with applications thankful for that, but if, uh if.

D

That's the case.

C

A

Having a requirement makes sense to me if we think that the user agent is just a.

K

Musician, that is, we intimidated.

A

When you don't have anything to to say- and it's just a.

C

Fighting types of.

A

These presentations.

F

Thanks yeah I couldn't couldn't really make that out, because the audio is not great, but.

D

I think what I heard was, uh if indeed there is a need for app control, then that should be an explicit requirement in the use case, so that we can then see how to expose it in the API.

F

Yeah, usually um I I, don't recall ever seeing a stack that had rpsi under app control. I mean it's typically, the typically uh the the RTP stack just. Does it and I think that's how it was originally was originally implemented for vp8 and bp9, but.

F

Anyway, I I. The suggestion here is to deal with this as an IDF problem, uh rather than a w3c one and see if we can uh figure out how to how to support rpsi in in library, TC.

L

A

D

A

um Yeah, so apologies that my memory is on this topic are about four and a half years old, but I deleted it. We would some point want to. They have certain apis. That would allow us to select the.

I

Reference frame- and you don't want to allow application to actually directly.

A

Controller right to inject the controller or to uh basically do the controlling of the frame basis. uh So apologies, the library, is not sharp enough about all of the vehicles, but basically I just wanted to bring this up.

A

Potentially, or at least switch between different modes of uh selecting the next frame, I, don't know the next frame. Sorry, the phrase from which we predict um that's all so some of the links they led to my Google musician could switch from using fpsi to using lost notifications.

A

Do you remember what was which is not standard which then takes back to idea? Do you remember what functionality in Los Angeles.

A

um I would have to look into it first, but uh we have heard the philosophization allowed us to know both uh which frame whatso. We expected the right relax system knows which one was the best one decoded in case there was a frame that was over. One of the packets are like over. Here is very data.

A

So there might be then, so we need more information now.

A

Of course, that should work.

A

So action item seems to be that they need to investigate. What's what the information needs to be processed both over the wire and between the application and respect.

H

A

I figure out if there's ideas, work or API work or pull or not to satisfy this requirements.

B

A

So who's this action I said.

F

Well, the discussion of rpsi itself uh in this will probably occur in ABD core, uh and also maybe that includes discussion of this custom rtcp message since that seemed to work better than rbsi.

F

So the protocol side I think is handled in ITF, but.

D

But I think the question is who's tying. It together and figure out whether or not there is an API surface need.

F

I think that should will come out of the this is part of the hebc implementation in library, TC, so I think that will uh that will Bubble Up from from the discussion of the implementation, there's PRS for both Safari and chromium.

A

It's lots of years.

F

Lots of PRS right more than one.

I

Okay and I have uh uh two more uh requirements: uh can you go in uh go back to slide 35.

I

Yes, there there are n50 and and 51. uh regarding the M50 I think we already have neck delay, but we still need a transport wide rtcp.

I

D

So uh for the transport finder, if you negotiate.

A

There's been two of that, the server has explicit, there's a flag, basically saying that the certain world's feedback over the circular.

A

A

I

So uh see ah does it? Does that mean we have a implementation already.

A

There are six side implementation as well.

A

It used to be used by Stadium.

D

I'm not sure about if it's implemented in different sort, questions.

A

F

I think I think we're approaching over time. So uh maybe we need to finish this in the Overflow session.

B

A

So we've got them uh we'll take care and slides 38 to the third is to 43 we'll go to those section and by that.

D

So, let's switch to.

A

Qualifications for no need interference.

K

Hi everyone I'm barok and yeah I'm gonna talk about this emergency plan of use case, which is 3.2 and basically I, will talk with issues in PR that we already have on GitHub and to support this mistakes.

K

Oh so we already had this setup discussed in the last meeting in July, but let me go through that again, so we have a new here or a wrestling pure, which has two receiving peer connections or delivery included friends from the same original couple stream, but with different metadata because of databuse, and what you will do here is we use. Inquiry transforms to read printed things from these to peer collections.

K

Oh I'm, just modified frame can now look forward to other video PCS and also rendered on this notes. Local element using structure.

K

And to support this use case, we have reporting three requirements or they want to. So we would like to change the robotics English being SEC with the following three changes. First, is the ability to move frames between peer connections, the second? It would be to call structure clone on trades inquiry trains. Another third would be to allow modifying the RP simple video, artistic music, video.

K

Regarding the first one that would allow us to that would allow a node to see anybody strange from one Clear Connection and drag it to another, and to achieve this change we would uh we would. We would need to remove the Restriction clause on string steam limited to unfair connection, and we already have a PR for that, and also the two issues that I mentioned here and yeah.

K

We haven't seen much after today, so yeah, maybe discussion Studio next slide.

K

uh The second would be to allow structure to more important frames so that the receiving field can use the same important thing for rendering locally and also for forwarding to other training fields, and this for this people uh want to Mark the other simple things realizing them.

K

Next and the last one is to modify the metadata for the RDA single frames so that the trains from different piece so to support the redundancy in space in case of peer failure, and we want to limit our changes only to particular time sum for audio and video and the video we only want to. In addition to this, we also want to do Train ideas and dependencies change.

K

K

Yeah so I think it's the discussions on will be our issues.

B

A good picture.

A

The formal requirements on the market, something is serializable a platform object, that's so natural, not that they have a serialization and a decentralization step defined, but civilization digitalization does not require that the outputs be observable by accident, so the steps can just say and to an internal format the impacts. So this doesn't need to be a heavy animal specification.

A

I'm responsible for that particular email, so I have not entered the sentences. Yet sorry about that.

K

A

Without us, it's heated.

J

I have a few questions. uh First, one clarification you're talking about encoded frames right, yes, so the second question would be if we had a Constructor for encoded frame. Would that be sufficient for some of these things? Would that obviate the need for some of these, or is that just unrelated.

A

We have a discussion on Constructor, but uh we in this particular use case. We found the defining reconstruct the required defining pool with the metadata and while just modifying that data allowed us to say that and by the way, there's there's more methods of this thing, but we don't, but we don't look at it and we don't change so so when we're looking at the property internal implementation, which is messier than us together- and this was a significant specification- it's a woman we're suggesting instead of contractor, we do an infrastructure for all the use cases.

A

I mean the job discussing the one-handed use cases for this people, so they're coming back.

J

My final question was about the the forwarding of the encoded frames to another peer connection. When you do that, how do you know what bandwidth is available for forwarding to the other uh peer connection, to know what you're capable of forwarding and not.

A

So in use case where we were yeah, it's a use case where we know that the most we're forwarding to or on the same local network and we're assuming that so E7 is the gigabit of foreign.

A

The detection of which are on the local network, ambition loss, yes, an interesting problem, but not something that is I, think I, think I think whether you're forwarding a frame or just sending your friends.

A

The question, if you have enough bandwidth, is unrelated to the fact that you're forwarding right it's it's just a clear connection and you're sending it right. So that can be asked of any reflection.

A

E

Yes, so I just have a little bit of a concern about how we got here, because we're about to see encoded frame to paraphrase is basically taking a pipe out of the wall, breaking it in half and inserting JavaScript to give JavaScript uh a means to transform existing frames, um which led to some of the limitations we're fighting here, but that also becomes a it seems that has become a very powerful opportunity for JavaScript to say: hey what happens if I put all this other stuff in and I'm a little concerned with moving frames between PCS?

E

What does that do to the user agents ability to know what's going on and to be able to uh make optimal decisions? So I'm questioning whether this is the right, so I'm not necessarily opposed to solving these problems, but I'm questioning a bit? If this is the right API surface, if we need a better surface, if the goal is going to be to um give more uh broader controls to JavaScript here as far as structured clone, I, don't see a problem.

E

uh Well, I should ask encoded. This is encoded as frames right. So there's no GPU backing is that right.

E

Right so so, since there's no specific ownership transfer issues, I don't see a problem with structured clone, although I would have seen a problem with it, perhaps on Raw frames, but uh ability to modify metadata same thing.

E

um It seems like this at least was designed for one thing, and now it's being repurposed, so there might be an opportunity to revisit API surface.

E

Is that fair? Yes, foreign.

A

Concerns in terms of the use case with standard transform his soul, but if you're adding too much metadata, then things are going up and there basically it's the same case, but my pattern because it might be a legalized connections that actually, you might take a class. So when we discussion is much lower and you will still try to push to be a lot of data, send.

A

A much bigger a whole much lower if it's too low, then maybe this.

B

Information is.

A

B

A

Responsible to say any product will be, trade is mutual digital, and now you should achieve that and so on and that's the model we've learned, Center Transformer and with this we are moving away from that. But if you're still using government Transformer and uh idea to have a different UK shape, where we're staying, uh there's no way, of course, and then it's very clear from using agent that uh it has to be something else in terms of value definition and so on. Like.

A

So but the person said anything effectively speaking I don't understand. If you have Market loss I, don't understand how you get. The notification is.

A

Getting afraid and sending it and it's the same is not successful, then distributable indication that package was lost and it should trigger on top of the side that there's a new key thing which should be sent over and so on, and we don't have these mechanisms there.

A

So in that particular use case, you need to be, you know, available Network like ethernet, no packet, loss and I, don't see how well this applications can know that web applications cannot know whether they are either like one gigabyte connections, so I'm not sure what they're doing, but actually is so.

B

I would much prefer that we have an API.

A

Communication is responsibility and when some failed, it receives a notification, but I think there's a favor arrival of fear and if you react, opponent and whoever potentially transform is not I, think I think they want to accomplish yes and again: I suspect the former native friends requests has already sold on paper, that's not implemented, but the Philippines added to.

I

A

Parameters, API the keyframe request and I believe whether or not you've receive keyframe requests is visible and gets fed. So you can just forget that and then yeah, so you have a lot of players, you, basically you won't get a few packets and we won't receive it as soon as possible in a worker thread to be.

K

A

To understand as soon as possible.

A

We don't have that. That's.

A

Very simple so now.

A

A

So what so? The important thing seemed from with the rest of the foundation team that the congratives and stuff. We know that this can be done, because we're done this and yes, there are Alternatives in terms of aprc and I'm gonna. Try to pursue in a few more like that, but.

A

They aren't there, yet we don't care if it works, because.

A

This particular smallest Stone, because we think that hey they work and B, they mean report of any solution anyway,.

A

We're working in.

A

Hope for the for the for.

B

The use case that we have tested.

A

A

By the way, because you didn't find a couple of instances of exactly the problems that they were outlining, yes, they were effective.

A

Api, to a very kind degree means that, for example, if, if there's an issue that it takes the second to not keeping the quest, it might be easier if you just add an event in the back button and had us completely separated from India apis.

A

And I think that it would be better if you say: okay, you.

H

Need at the end of the day,.

A

B

uh In terms of API.

A

Shape this way from the right place to feel the right place and uh would be fairly another API, and my understanding is that, given that there's no encoder anymore foreign.

A

Seems to point that a manner usage that was not quite what we're attracting here, but.

B

A

C

Like to do this,.

B

Iteratively I'm not.

A

Wait for the perfect, perfect submission to arrive well, I, understand the literally and uh respect people, and this.

B

A

Sending stuff, and uh if you, if you want to argue that we should break up the Weber saying all the transformation.

A

A

A

Open Temptations backwards.

A

A

Okay- and we don't have a solution for that, so I will look at that and within some teacher's case, and they are very similar and I like to get a solution and maybe you're talking about able to make this exactly so yeah. You can study people to use your magnets great.

D

I think we are out of time.

F

Yep back at 1400 it'd be nice. If everyone is timely, so we can get started right away, see you in an hour.

A

A

Excuse me: okay, we're back here, hope everyone have a good lunch, see the book anyways for this section, 40.

B

A

But okay, let's see don't mind yourself.

A

Okay um is trying to spread.

A

Thank you public matter. Remember to see a media capture. You have 14 35 minutes from now.

A

Thank you uh next I think we have the next slide so that obvious and next slide, I'll start with the track stats API shape, so the track stats API has we've added it to the extensions Bank previously to count these train counters, how many frames are produced, delivered, distorted or dropped, and we come up with the definitions with these stats, but there's been an ongoing discussion, whether the the metrics should be exposed with an asynchronous API or a synchronous, API, and so the issue is that the frame counter's been on off the main thread, because media is Flowing across the main 12 and we have these uh run the completion, semantics design principle that says that you should not change values exposed to JavaScript um in the same task execution cycle to avoid races.

A

So, for example, you could post uh post a test to change the value and I previously argued against uh synchronous API, uh because I was afraid of excessive post-past being or having to use new, Texas or caching, um but as as have been proven in the thread and also now I have a implementation experience. uh We can, we can implement it either way.

A

Next slide, so, basically, okay,.

A

That's for some other version or the ways, and because the site is this, I mean to be able to use this in a context that is not tasting.

A

I have a PR that changes the API from I'm gonna wait API to get this, and the way you can achieve the sign principles is that you have internal slots, and then you only update them if you haven't already updated them and make that.

A

I'm I'm happy to like follow upside, so they maybe in the separate interface or should we move them into the track?

A

um So that's up for a discussion, but what I want to do to get consensus on today is whether it should be asynchronous or synchronous. So I have a PR that changes this and I proposal this that we merge budget comments.

A

I, don't want to react to things better with the synchronous API there here, giving the impression that you can do real things that, based on the stats, so I think we have either of that, and if you have the name, videos that you might think you know it starts with time. So, let's uh that's a good thing.

A

um I still don't like that. We have to do extra work somehow to by default, to implement this API I would pretty sure that somehow you would only start counting or start doing some stuff if there's a a call and where it's not not really the case, because it's uh it's together.

A

Versions of this API and I was so the counters they live on one thread and you just plus equals one right. That's simple! The only work you have to do is when you get them and it's possible to do without you Texas so yeah I would argue that the synchronous version ended up being simpler.

A

You can just use the atomics, so you continue to at the end of the task to clear the slot right or no. You.

B

A

Remember somehow, so you can do it, you just need to keep track of if you've already updated them like. If the getter has already been called in the current task execution cycle, you don't need to do anything in between. So the naive implementation would be to have a Boolean that says that equals false and then the cat is supposed to update the values, to set the value to true and then your queue of micro tests to set cash. Once again, you can do it without the math.

A

So the micro task, if you just keep an ident ID to the which task execution cycle, am I in one two, three four five and just remember last time, I updated the counter versus press execution 10.. So it's 11 now I'll update it. That's always the post test again I mean one post test for the call list. Also.

A

B

Don't have this idea.

A

Because then qmq medical plan, after that there will be under the micro password. So you would need to to uh indicate the flashing ID and the last micro tasks and that's not well. You need.

H

A

Mention with it for that.

A

Yeah I still think that you're you're trying to make more people more developers trying to do.

H

A

uh uh Processing in the main thread, with this kind of apis.

A

A

Yes, so that's fine.

A

B

Is re-implementing.

A

Stable state, essentially a stable, State concept right. Can we not use that? Okay, what you're describing is called waiting a stable state in the HTML stack like it's a well-defined concept, all right, so you can say this attributes are updated when, when the, when there is a stable State, meaning there is no JavaScript on the stack anymore. So.

H

The attribute values can be updated and next time it runs some code there Revenue very that's, that's something. That's used a lot.

A

So yeah rental completion is preserved, that's the main purpose, uh but also it's efficient. So yes,.

A

Yeah, so we use that, for example, in Media uh uh we use the uh a bunch of locations, but the exception would be timers like apis, where, if you, you query, you get a different value. It's saying that all that yeah, if I, remember the concept of stable, State Correction, which I may not that's. What is happening between cyclists between its news recycles so you're saying that you could conceptually update the countries whenever you hit the Stables so that the implementation, what I see what what have to do with the cash, because.

K

A

Don't want to impose any overhead when we don't really.

A

The difference is not observable, so it doesn't matter what perspectives and the way the language is right now is. It says this is the first time together is called in this test execution cycle. If that needs to be rephrased, and then we can rephrase it, but the concept is the same: you can only get there, but I mean I, just return it. So in Spec we need to Define behavior.

A

So that's also fine. It's the.

H

I

Can implement it the way you want as.

A

Long as it's the same uh so yeah I mean we will implement it, we have civil, States or I, don't know a typical buffer or whatever.

H

A

M

Needs to be this, this is clear and we can implement it. The way.

A

We want I think.

H

Foreign but yeah, you can also.

A

You can also describe it exactly in the same way uh using the saying that the value is only updated during a civil state right. This.

B

A

H

Equivalent in terms of observable Behavior.

A

And it's using the concepts that are already used in the web platform. But.

H

Then you do what you want, even though you updates always.

A

Or you fully update a new cache, then you decide, depending on the whole implementation Works. What is best um Maria h.

A

A

Conditions I can put out the examples. Maybe it's going to be clear, like bits of other specs that do exactly the same thing and see how they write it, but yeah listen, but I I modify this pull request or I. Do a follow-up tool request or a existing language to make it more clear. Yeah I can, but are there any any objections to me now going in this direction?

A

Merging iterate or modifying orange sounds like everyone's fine with making your symptoms.

E

uh Yes, so yes, I'm, supportive of synchronous, API and merging this PR I just had an unrelated comment that, on the slide, your juxtapos and get stats versus video stats. uh So there's a separate issue of naming their I mean a track is always either video. It's always either video track or an audio track. So we could probably simplify and just call it stats and have it be a union of two interfaces, uh one or the other, but but that's but yes, for this particular issue.

E

I I think sync works and thank you Henry for doing the implementation design.

A

And I emerge and file a follow-up issue for a name and the phrasing the basically notice this I guess, I guess: I also have a code that does this.

E

Yeah I'd support that okay.

A

Resolution two follow-ups would be adjust the language if we find a way to express the same Concepts in a way that is simpler and More, in line with the red and and also rename so that it's called stats. Yes, so it would be. Let's.

H

Say: audio dot, stats or video.stats.

A

H

A

I think that sounds like.

E

Anybody, oh yes, this is me so uh hi I'm, Johnny, Barr from Mozilla, and so um just wanted to take this opportunity to present something Firefox is implemented recently, which is a select audio output, which is part of the media capture, output, spec and um just a quick refresher on this API is that even though that's it, the ability to to change the uh default output path, uh say you're in the library, for example, is, is behind permission.

E

uh You get it automatically if you get permission to microphone, but then there are use cases outside of video conferencing where you might be able to where you might want to not necessarily ask the user for permission to their microphone just to be able to redirect output to a speaker. So that's what the select audio output API does. It has its own prompt in order to reduce fingerprinting risk, because the old numer devices approach turned into be a big fingerprinting vector anyway, so we have that implemented and here's a demo page you can try.

E

It has a play button and a select speakers button. The idea is that, excuse me, the user can collect select. They can just hit play and have a play audio out at the default audio path, or they can um sorry can we go back a slide?

E

Yes, so um you can just hit play or you can. First click select speakers pick a different device like airpods in the prompt in the browser prompt and then, when you then hit play button. It'll play in your airpods um and Firefox will persist these device IDs so that you can refresh the page or come there later and when you hit play it would automatically go to your airpods if they're available, but there's a problem. uh If you refresh the next time you you enter the page.

E

If the airpods are in their case and you hit play, you get a prompt, and this is uh confusing users, because users expected to see a prompt when they hit select speakers not when they hit the play button, and in that case perhaps the better option would be to just play out through the normal audio path.

E

E

So the the thinking here is that this Behavior, whether it should play out through the default audio path in that case or if there should be a prompt it should be up. That should be an application decision.

E

But the way this API was designed is that you're always supposed to call select audio output at the risk of a prompt in order to deter trackers before you use the device ID that you've stored.

E

um So here's a proposal to modify this Behavior slightly um to give applications an opportunity to avoid the prompt.

E

So the proposal is: if the user agent recognizes a device ID having been removed, meaning it was a device that it used to satisfy earlier, then it is allowed to project select audio output, where you pass in a device ID with a not found error as a one-time currency instead of prompting uh subsequent calls, it says, would continue to prompt, could continue to prompt. It might be up to a bit to user agents, since this is a fingerprinting mitigation, exactly how that would work.

E

But this would provide an app application as an opportunity to remove this device ID from their local storage, and this would still serve as a deterrent to trackers, and this should be possible to implement by tracking recently removed devices.

E

So that's the proposals, any uh comments or feedback.

A

This is when, in the use case that you mentioned, I was wondering when you refresh available devices, not sure even.

A

That you're still pretending to know that it's there so in terms of design I, wonder whether that's the difference and uh modularly I was thinking. If the issue is a few airports you refresh and you, then we want to not point so maybe you could say that a Internet devices can expose the device I put a little bit longer so refresh after refresh, maybe for 5-10 minutes, and if so, when the web page, that is refreshed, it would cool name your basis check with Urban device. Is there if it's not there?

A

It knows that uh and uh they.

B

Give us a different.

A

Solution um to your.

E

Problem without changing.

A

E

Right so uh the the fact that you have a device ID stored, doesn't you know, enumeric devices already is quite limited, initially right. So uh there's a chicken and egg here where enumerate devices uh output devices in a number device only appear in the number of devices after you be called, select all the output, so I think the use case. Is you store your device ID that you use last time to local storage and you you pass that in to select all the outputs.

E

So that's the first thing that happens so there's no information in the numerate devices yet and then there's a there's either a prompt or or this new not found error, and then the application can respond and decide either to say never mind. Let me remove my device ID and play out through the default audio or a call, select audio output again without a device ID which will cause a prompt, did I miss something there.

B

A

I was wondering wondering whether we could change a little bit Yeah.

H

A

Page, so that uh it could not always select a new output.

A

To do uh like note from it can, and if thank you, it seems that when you have a refresh, what the web page needs to know is whether it can still uh have the airports and.

B

uh For any more devices, if.

A

You have that for a limited time, then the web page can actually show airports, no internet, there are unavailable, and if it's not there, then it will say select devices or you.

E

A

Just say before.

E

Right as I recall, though, the original design here was expressly to avoid trackers being able to track this information, which we I mean that's a similar fix. We did to camera microphone is that even though you have camera microphone, permission doesn't mean that it's uh which you know since covet happened. You know most people probably have given permission to all kinds of sites, so the decision there was to that is. It was still a fingerprinting surface that was unnecessary. So did we deferred exposure to to after uh camera, active camera?

E

Microphone was actually in use, so I think the same concern applies here. Yeah.

A

E

Yeah I'm not sure I quite follow the The Proposal there. But uh if we agree that this is something we should solve, then we could always iterate on the issue. Perhaps uh but I think our preference would still be to um to find a solution here uh as simple as possible.

E

That would not involve Internet devices I think because I don't see why you don't run the risk of trackers. In that case,.

A

So you want not the numer device and I'm not that one device change.

E

So on device change, there's a question: if, if the user later inserts their airpods, it might be useful to fire the device change event in that case, but we can do that as a follow-up.

A

It's the case, if the case their iPods, then there's there's a device change shouldn't because because they put them away, oh sure, if that fires before the pages is reloaded, then the new, the lead of rotate, will not get the correct page defense right, yeah same.

B

Problem so reloads complicates.

A

E

Yes, I mean uh this demo uses reload as the as the example, but in in practice you know you could be coming back the next day to use the site again, but the question there is: how do we recognize? How do we give application a way to recognize the device? If it's there um and I guess we could?

E

We could like force some language to always fire the device in an artificial device change event. uh If you had the airpods end, all the time sort of to give the application early warning hey, you still have this device, but all these approaches seem more complicated than just failing.

B

A

I, have a little worry about the one-time, courtesy I would actually, because, if you, if you don't call Select I'll, pull your output twice by excellent View, reduce the information or or if you will look twice and you you haven't been able to uh rotate your your idb. For instance, you know so so I I wonder if we could simply to select all the outputs, the device ID, and that is a known device, but it's no longer there. It turned off now there.

B

E

I mean, instead of what it could say, should we could leave this up to user agents, since this is a mitigation issue about how many times to reject, for example, um but at some point you know there It's tricky to discern trackers from legitimate use cases right so I'd be happy with uh some vague language here. As long as we have this allowance um that I don't know if we need to go all the way and say it must okay, but not not found error forever.

A

Sounds okay with me because also also because it's a mouse doesn't behave, we should actually compatible thing.

E

Right yeah, we could do that all.

B

Right, I'm, I'm.

E

Happy with this feedback, so thank you. This is you all right, so this is over in webrtc uh PC uh we found out uh so Firefox is implementing the uh the ice transport. uh Well, the final parts of the ass transport.

E

We had part of it, but we're finishing that work, and so we noticed that there's a bit of a gap here that if you have a data, Channel only peer connection, it's actually not possible to locate the ice transport object early enough to observe early events like ice Gathering and the reason for that is the transport on a transceiver, the transport, the dtls The Ice transport lives off the dtls transport, which lives off of either a transceiver or the sctp object.

E

Now transceivers are exposed after set local description and that's early enough to catch all the ice agent events. Sctp, however, is only only becomes non-null in stable State. When you have the answer, when negotiation has completed, which means that since you don't have the satp object yet there's no way to find the ice, dtls transport or the ice transport, it means you can't register event listeners early enough to catch State changes for the ice transport for details you probably can can make do but yeah for ice. You want Gathering State, select a candle pair change.

E

Perhaps if there's a peer reflexive candidate, so this seems inconsistent. So the question is: should we surface the satp's transport in set local description uh like other transports?

E

One complication there is, we would still have to handle rollback, but we already had a rollback for the other transport, so that doesn't seem that big of a deal next slide.

E

Now the satp object itself has a couple of attributes that uh so it'd be a little, so exposing it early might cause uh some properties to be available sooner and it turns out there's only one and it's Max message size, which currently is just a number and it would have to become nullable just like Max channels is today so um hopefully, in most cases, applications are written where they know what state they're in and they're reacting to existing events and they use.

E

That means you don't necessarily have to think about this provided you're in a known State like connected, for example, but if you're writing code that instead doesn't rely on state but is sort of inferring State, based on the presence or absence of the satp object. For example, you might run into trouble because earlier the sentence in red here would have worked like if you have an satp object.

E

You have a Max message size, so you would have to modify that to also make sure that the max message size is not null before you have that information.

E

um So it's you know, there's some proposals on on the issue to make more significant changes, but I think this late in the game. We need to minimize changes based on uh compatibility concerns, so the only two proposals I'm presenting here is basically to do this to surface the satp transport in that local description a little bit earlier, just like the other transports.

E

The other proposal is to do nothing and then basically say that for data Channel only uses direct people to use the existing aggregate event. Listeners like on Ice candidate connection, State change and online scheduling, State change, arguing that in the data Channel only transport case, you only have one transport but for consistency. I would prefer that we do a so any objections, any any thoughts. Any.

A

Objections: I've got three people on the Queue, go ahead. Yeah.

J

I think you're right that we want to expose the ice transfer earlier on, especially if we add controls as we're proposing uh as we have been and have later slides about so I. Don't think, B really works well and I think there might be a proposal C, which is to add a method like peerconnection dot, get ice transports, and that would give you direct access to ice transports um and in the data Channel case that you'd expect there would only be one, then that would be backwards compatible.

J

B

J

Would be fine, but I would also be fine with they.

A

I guess is useful compilers earlier and if so, why, or is this only about a consistency.

E

It's it's useful because otherwise, there's no way to get at the ice transport and without the ads transport there. The event handlers that are on the previous slide will not be accessibility.

B

M

um I'm not sure about having Max message, size notable um since this is mostly an implementation um detail on the username chart and it's going to be most likely a fixed value that value can be updated later on negotiation, but that's something that you would need to handle anyway in your code. So if user agent returns a value that they currently support or intend to negotiate, that would probably be fine, and so we don't need to have code that can handle next message. Size, bingo,.

E

When you say implementation issue in the browser or in the application.

M

uh The max message size is something that is a property of the browser and the implementation in the browser. So it's something in the browser is going to use a specific value automatically and negotiate that something you could possibly alter by merging sdp, but probably something that most people will do. So if you return that value, um that would be fine and then later on after negotiation,.

H

M

You will have to see- maybe the other side has different implementation that has a smaller bit of a size. So you need to handle that anyway, so being able to see some value is probably not going to be a problem.

M

Having no, on the other hand, means you need to handle that use case, and it could be a problem so existing implications. I, don't think it's um okay,.

E

So, are you proposing uh a but change Max message size to not be in early Max message, size alone and then you might might the value might change after negotiation.

M

That um maybe orthogonal to aob but in um yeah I, think I would be uh supportive mail for a where we would have to roll back the transport if we don't have satp negotiated in the end and that's more work but I think that could be useful, but I didn't think much of about it. Yet.

H

E

H

A

I'd like to support is a substance. C I mean when we sort of try to use transport to write tests for BTS Transporters. We found that so all the tests and use this code to add a data channel, so I added the audio track. Sorry quite random. What kind of object we had had to add, but yeah I'm, quite independent of what we're trying to look at so I would.

L

A

If we need to observe the state of the transport before we know whether or not there's going to be a satp transport on it, I mean the section might get rejected as I propose. We have that I had an attribute to the peer connection that that attributes or getter that I guess gets the transports.

E

Okay, that the problem, though, is that during negotiation, there can temporarily be multiple transports and then, when the answer comes back and if it's bundle a lot of those might go away again. So we have a lot of complexity built into the model here, so I'm a little nervous about exposing more um methods, because you'd have to return an array of transports then, and it's not clear which transport is which yes,.

A

E

A

You, if you care about which transport is which or which then you, then you need to need to actually compare them to the transport, so I think I think those others, but in many cases like if, if you do maximum.

A

Right so index index here.

E

So, do you see proposal CS instead of proposal a then or is that something that we could discuss separately.

A

A

Because if we have this, then the use case for surfacing and I said the picture I posted as a degree transport that might disappear before you can use it. It scares too, if we're only concerned about this one specific ice transport. What about proposal B to have an attribute for the satp transport size, transport messy.

E

Well, I I think yeah I'm worried about it becoming messy here, because uh our transport situation is a bit complicated. We do seem to have an inconsistency about when we expose transports it'd be nice to fix that. So uh you know, I I would still uh support proposal. A here, I think given the options, but um for.

A

The record I I like pickles today too.

H

E

All right um so Harold, how do you feel about prosely in isolation.

A

A

It bugs me a bit, but not too much at that moment. No okay I prefer to.

E

A

E

Could live with.

A

E

Okay, um so I think in most cases the max message size would not be an issue because hopefully applications uh will already await the correct State before they go around.

E

So whenever they do read it, they will not have to deal with no, but this is an initial state only that, since we expose it early, you would only have this problem if, for some reason, are looking at the object early, which you wouldn't be, if, if you act in known States, so that would be my my case for it, but I think we're at time and so I'm hearing I'm hearing no main objections to proposal a is that right.

E

Remember we can file an issue on if we want to have a separate method for transport. I get a getting a transport array, but that does seem problematic to me in that you wouldn't know which ones with which.

E

I think that's my time.

E

Okay, okay, thank you.

A

For only four minutes over time, so it's Samir yeah.

C

Sorry, foreign.

C

And uh today, Peter and I will continue our conversation about the ice controller apis. So this is the roadmap that we started off with uh for incremental improvements to ice control on the web. The first atom has a PR, that's seen quite a lot of discussion debate on iterations, uh so it's quite uh feels quite well done at the stage the next two items have open PRS that will I will uh that I will talk about a bit more today and then Peter will talk later about some of the following items.

C

So the next slide.

C

So the goal of this item is to allow applications to choose any of the wallet candidate pairs to send data and a few rules from RFC 8445 that are relevant in this particular situation. So to summarize them ice agents start off by collecting candidate pairs, performing checks and then at some point the controlling agent decides to do nomination on one of those valid pairs.

C

Once the nomination succeeds, data can only be sent and received on the selected pair and the agent isn't allowed to nominate again and an I3 start is required if we want to send data on a different candidate pair and that's what we would like to avoid. We want to avoid a nice restart, because that needs several more round. Trips of sdp exchange, candidate pair exchange, more connectivity, checks, nomination, and all of that, so we are allowed to use any valid candidate pair prior to nomination, and so that's what we are proposing.

C

So in the next slide.

C

We are a new event that is fire on the controlling ice agent when it wants to do nomination. If the application chooses it can prevent the nomination from happening by canceling this event by calling prevent default and instead the application, you can call a new method, such selected candidate pair to choose how to send data to the uh to the peer and once application calls are selected. The ice agent will immediately start sending data on that candidate pair.

C

So this is something that can be done both on the controlling and control side, because nomination is the only thing that only the controlling site gets to do so. On the controlling side, when the application calls selected, we can have another nomination event fire which uh now the application can either let that carry on and conclude eyes or it can prevent that nomination as well.

C

uh If it wants to change the candidate pair at some point further in the future, so does the API for that uh and uh just to clarify this proposal does not alter in any the fundamental I States or state transitions in any way. So the only thing this will do is allow us to be in this intermediate pre-conclusion state, where we can use any candidate pair that we want, uh and then it still lets us get to the conclusion uh as well. So the I State machine can still function uh in compliance with RFC 8445.

C

So on the next slide.

C

So this item deals with removing candidate pairs that are no longer necessary. So for this we propose a new method: remove candidate pairs fairly straightforward. It can also do bulk removals for efficiency and when a candidate pair is removed using this new method, it triggers a non-cancelable candidate pair remove event, and that makes it symmetric with the hard event that was Proposition in earlier PR as well, so on the next slide.

C

So this is an example that puts together all the new apis proposed, thus far, it's an application that only wants to use UDP candidate pair with remote port3478.

C

So it stops off by setting up the peer connection in the bottom left. It makes the node of every candidate pair that it sees through the r event and then in the top right. If the ice agent is trying to remove any candidate pair, and that happens to be the UDP 3478 pair, the application prevents that from happening by canceling the event.

C

Similarly, if the isagent is trying to nominate candidate pair that isn't the UDP 3478 pair, uh it can prevent that by according to your default and then finally, once it does see the UDP 3478 pair, it uh switches the transport using that as a selected candidate pair and then finally, it uh it can dribble for all of the unused credit cards. So that's just an example to show uh what the EPA can do thus far and then over to Peter for the new purpose of this.

J

All right next slide, so these are ones that do not yet have a PR. So the goal of presenting here today is to see if the overall shape is one where it's okay to go. Make PRS for these things. So I've got three slides with examples and then one with what the web Ideo will look like the kind of or or for all the examples.

J

So the first example is when an application would like to know the result or the rtt of the outgoing checks, and so the proposal is to add an event on the ice transport that lets.

J

You know lets the web app know that a nice check is being sent and because it's cancelable, which I'll get to in the next slide, it's called uncheck send not on check sent because it's like going to be sent, and uh the key is that you can get the time that the check is sent and you can get the time the rest. The response is received and you can get whether there was an error in the response.

J

So you know if um something went wrong and you know if it worked, and you know how long the delay was between sending and receiving so this allows an application to do its own calculation, of which candidate pair it likes based on rtt and error and so forth.

J

J

Then, if an application doesn't want to check to be sent at all for a particular candidate pair, then it can prevent that from being sent just like the others. uh The other events that are cancelable and next slide.

A

The second line of this track indicates why I like the option C for the previous discussion.

A

The the line means that this code can only be used for media to see if there's no data challenge.

J

And then, finally, if an application wants to send checks, then there's a new method on the ice transport called, send, check or I mean we can debate the names, but uh there's a method that allows it to send a check, and there were the return. Value is similar to the event where it can get the time that it actually gets sent and the response that gets received and whether there's an error in response and if the, if a response, never comes back, if there's just a loss next slide.

J

So all three of these uh can be done with this set of web ideo, like I, said, there's an event on the ice transport and a method for sending a check. The event is cancelable, and if you don't cancel it, then you get. This check object that lets. You know when the check is sent and also when the response is received and if there's an error, I also threw in the transaction ID onto the check, because in my experience, writing server software that or I should say remote endpoint. uh That speaks with a web client.

J

It's really nice to be able to debug ice connectivity issues if you know the transaction ID, but that's just kind of a little bonus. So um the discussion or the question is: is this the right shape enough that we can now proceed to write some PRS for it or is there something fundamentally objectionable that um people want to talk about.

A

Just for the just asking, why do you use array but for transfectionism.

J

uh Is that not the best way to just get some bites? It's 20 bytes.

J

A

So it's it's just.

J

Bites yeah yeah transaction ideas, always just 20 bytes.

B

A

A

The ice check object could be a used one like an object that cannot be used once.

A

They, the application, will have to manage it sometimes.

J

uh No I the way I did it here was that um the if there's a timeout, the ice agent will determine when a check times out and then the response resolves to an undefined or null. But if we don't like it that way, we could you know quibble about the exact API shape in the PR, but um I thought it'd be easier if the application didn't have to deal with.

H

If there's no response, can that be packet loss counters, so you know, if so not only rdd, but we could also like I, said 10 pack. 10 checks got it back, estimate back and.

J

Loss in that sense, yes, yeah, the application could do that.

J

And I think that would be valuable for doing things like probing different candidate pairs. You.

E

J

Using one for media, but then you're kind of probing other candidate pairs to see if they're, how well they're working that's kind of the whole point of this.

H

Right: okay, thank you. I.

J

A

This one, you can't face any issue with, uh like main effect blocking and so on or click like only not that much important. If you have like some latency between the call and the same time you get it I guess get the information. But uh that's do you think there will be an issue if I think that window or or not,.

J

Sorry it was hard to understand that, but I think you were saying there would be a delay between when you call send check and when it's actually sent.

A

I'm guessing you need to bring back.

A

Maybe maybe it's not but I like to understand wherever it's it's, okay, to use this API in a context where uh you call record.

B

A

Then it gets sang a.

B

A

Then you get the results or of your or whatever it should be. The worker, in some cases,.

J

Sorry, it was hard to understand, but I think you were saying. Should this be in a worker.

A

uh Yeah, basically, yes, do you think like having a window is good enough. uh If you look at people and see where these API is going to be called editing, the signaling frame, which is uh which can be started in the network thread and so on. That's I like to understand.

J

I think you're you're. You bring up a good point that uh it would be nice if the RTP transport is something that you could hand control over to worker.

J

And I don't know enough about workers to know how hard that would be, but I think you're right that it would be better to be able to control this from a worker than not have the ability to do that.

A

Okay, I guess somehow, because yeah.

C

uh I just want to say I, quite like the shape of this I, think it's uh it's quite convenient to have one point from which you can get both to check that is sent, and then the response that's received, and it also allows for good extensibility.

C

If we want to allow the application to send to let's say, set specific stun attributes or something in the future, then that can be something that can be added to send check or if we want to expose more information about the stem packets itself, that can go into ice check or check response.

C

uh I guess the only thing I would want to bring up is. Should there be a way to associate a check response with the source check, and that could be something as straightforward as adding the transaction ID into check response.

J

I think you would know the that, when a response is tied to a check, because the response you get the response from the check object.

J

But you know if we wanted to change the shape so that there's like an event that says, got response in an event that says got sent check. uh Then you would need to tie them together by transaction ID, but here at least how I have it. You only get the response from the check dot response. Basically, so you would know that that response is for that check.

J

Okay, so I'm not hearing any objections, I'm just hearing like slight, uh you know ideas for how to improve the shape, so I think the next step should be to make a PR and then continue discussion in the pr is that, okay with everybody.

J

All right, great.

J

Well, I'm all done with this topic, then that's my last slide.

B

A

10 extra minutes for discussing about the B Transport.

J

All right so RTP transport uh Stefan, if you ever wanna, do the presenting just jump in and let me know that's.

H

L

H

J

I can hear you.

J

All right so next slide.

J

So um previously, I presented on RTP transport and some of the feedback I got was that what I was presenting had too big of a gap between what we are where we are, and there wasn't an incremental approach, so Stefan reached out to me, and he had some ideas for how to make it a more incremental or Progressive version.

J

um Building a you know. Is it easier way to get there without such a big gap?

J

um But we both agreed on the reasons for the RTP transport and so I wanted to have the first slide be a reminder of some of those some of them. We talked about today, things like having your own audio codec or things like forwarding of RTP from one endpoint to another being able to control a Jitter buffer.

J

Sorry can you go back and there are others that we talked about previously things like being able to customize the packet station or customize your FEC or your RTX, or even write your own Jitter buffer to be able to do your own bitrate allocation. We did talk today about doing custom metadata that you can send, along with your media and also custom rtcp messages. So some of these we've talked about and some of today and some of them we've talked about previously, but there's a lot of customization. That would one would want to do that.

J

Rtp transport provides so now next slide.

J

Sorry next slide, so Progressive version means that it works with the current peer connection and it works with the encoded streams and it works with web codecs, and you can pick which parts you want to replace or keep, and it's not like uh such a big gap between where we are and all I'll show you what I mean by that next slide.

J

So here's the the big idea is that there's a new method on peer connection called create RTP transport. It's similar to create data channel in the sense that when you call it it causes ice and dtls to be set up in the local description. Remote description and um the difference is that it also sets up srtp.

J

But the srtp is different than the existing uh audio and video senders and receivers in that you can receive all of the RTP and rtcp packets for the entire bundle group, and you can send any RTP or rtcp package. You want as long as you do not break srtp or congestion control.

J

And then you also get a bandwidth estimate to know how much you should send, because if you send too much, your packets may be queued or dropped.

J

So kind of like the data Channel, where you can send and receive anything you want, except that it is RTP, packets and rtcp packets, that you send and receive and like the data Channel, you don't get to break encryption or congestion control, but otherwise you can send and receive what you want.

J

A

Three questions is this the case, but, like that doesn't know you could mix like Legacy notifications.

A

J

I think we should be able to mix them in the same bundle. Group and I'll show an example of that later on. But basically, uh if you were to have an RTP transport object in the same bundle group as uh some senders and receivers, then you it's still. You would be able to receive the packets in the RTP transport, as well as through the receiver or you'd, be able to send, with the caveat that you can't break srtp. So you can't reuse an ssrc sequence. Number rollover, account combination.

J

But I'll get into an example like that. A little later.

J

Okay, any other.

G

Questions before yes,.

G

You go to bandwidth estimate, there's nothing here. That requires you to stay within the bandwidth, however, is that correct? You could just blast data out ignoring the estimates.

J

Now, if you send more well, you could call send more often, but your packets will be queued or dropped. The the browser will enforce the the congestion control.

J

Just like, if you took an satp data, Channel set it's unreliable and blasted away at it, it would just drop or it would queue up to some limit and then drop.

J

D

Has raised a hand, that's all.

J

Sorry I didn't see that Harold.

A

A

A

Okay, your neighbor, your mic is not working.

J

Okay, I'll keep going and then if he can get his mic working we'll.

J

Let him ask his question so some examples of things you can do with this is that you could do your own encoding and packetizing with your own custom, codec say the plug-in audio codec that we were talking about earlier or you could use the existing encoders from encoded streams, but then do your own packetization and sending or you could do the same but apply your own custom FEC and then send, or you could observe the Knacks coming in over rtcp and then choose to do your own custom, RTX Behavior, because maybe you want some uh more aggressive RTX or something hi I'm, good, okay, I'll pause!

J

Then yanivar you want it.

E

uh Sorry, yes, I had some Zoom audio issues there. um My question was just going to be what happens if I call create RTP transport twice or many times if it's modeled on data Channel.

J

um I'll get to the effect that has on the sdp in a little bit, but uh I'll make sure to answer that question right.

E

J

Foreign, okay, so back to the examples um you could receive packets and use your own custom, Jitter buffer implementation. So like that game streaming one. If it really wanted controller for the Jitter buffer, they could write their own Jitter buffer implementation and maybe use web codecs for decode. uh You could receive packets and depacketize them yourself and then inject those into encoded streams, so that the encoded stream still does the frame level Jitter buffer, but you're doing the depacketization.

J

This would require, however, a Constructor for the encoded audio framer, encoded video frame.

J

You could observe incoming feedback and do your own custom bandwidth estimate, if you think you can do a better job at bandwidth estimation than what's built in the browser. As long as you go lower than the built-in congestion control, because you wouldn't be allowed to say, oh my bandwidth estimator can do 100 megabits per second and then overcome the built-in one.

J

You could get frames from the encoded stream, packetize them yourself and then attach custom metadata and then send them.

J

You could get the bandwidth estimate from the RTP transport and do your own bitrate allocation for, say your simulcast layers and then control the bit rates on the RTP senders through the max bit rate, RTP parameter or you could forward. Rtp, packets or rtcp packets, like keyframe requests from one peer connection to another, with full control over the entire packet, uh rather than having to rely on encoded streams uh hackery at the frame level.

J

So those are some examples of things we could do. um I'll get I'll show some code in a minute next slide.

J

So here's what it might look like if you wanted to do custom, packetization yeah, you would call create RTP transport you'd, get back this transport and then you could combine that with encoded streams to say: okay, I'll read out what is encoded built in I'll apply my own packetizer, but instead of piping that through to go out the normal transport, I'm, gonna, pipe it through to the RTP transport that I created next slide.

J

Here's an example where we do the opposite: where we receive RTP packets from the RTP transport, and then we inject the encoded video frames and encoded audio frames into the uh encoded streams, and that requires a Constructor for those next slide and here's an example where, if we allow the Jitter buffer to be disabled on encoded streams, which I think is something we would need to add, then you could not only do the deep packetization, but also do your own Jitter buffer and decide when you want to have something come out of the digital buffer.

J

So if you wanted to, for example, in that game streaming example have a very constant Jitter buffer delay, you could do it in with something like this next slide, and uh this is kind of I was a little lazy when I wrote this, but uh you could apply this idea to multiple simulcast layers here, it's just one, but basically you can get a bandwidth estimate called Target, send right here from the rtb transport and then decide how am I going to allocate this in this trivial example.

J

We just take the entire thing and give it to one simulcast layer, but you could divide them up yourself and say: okay, the lowest layer gets I, don't know an eighth and this next layer up gets a quarter and so on, but it'd be under your control, as opposed to right now in the browser where you know uh it kind of decides, for you next slide.

J

So um what does the RTP packet look like that you send and receive uh it's? Basically a parsed RT packet, you don't have you don't get a byte buffer and then parse it yourself. Instead, you have the values that you would expect from an RTP packet like an ssrc and a sequence number and a timestamp in a marker bit Etc um and then, when you receive it, you can read all those things and when you go to send one you can you can set them with an rtcp packet. It's a little different.

J

Those are compound packets. Sorry, you can go to the rtcp packet slide.

J

um Those are compound packets. So you get like an array of things and those each have a payload type and a payload subtype, sometimes called a reception report count, and then I was thinking that we would just leave the payload unparsed so that you can decide what to do, and uh you can have your own custom messages. But if that's not convenient, we could add the ability to have a parsed sender report. Receiver report. Etc um I- did have that in a previous uh version of this.

J

J

um Now getting to what it looks like when you call RTP transport and coming to that question of what happens, if you call it twice, this is a part where I think we would need to Define it in the ITF, but the magic line is the m equals application and then the RTP protocol and then a star. So basically, what this means is I want to do. Rtp, but I'm, not saying whether it's audio or video, it could be anything and I'm, not saying what the payload types are going to be.

J

It could be anything so it's kind of like a wild card RTP where really you're just trying to set up the ice, dtls and srtp part of RTP, but then any other further negotiation would be up to the application to decide because the application would be free to send any payload type or header extension.

J

It wants, except that the header extensions related to congestion control need to be specified here, because the application is not in control of that they, like I, said you can't break congestion control here, and you could bundle this with existing um mlines. So you could have a an satp M line that would, you know, be shared and you could have other rtpm lines that would be shared and if you called create RTP transport more than once, then it would create multiple lines of this.

J

But I think we would need to say that those would not be in the same bundle group I. Suppose we could leave it. Allow them to be in the same bundle group, but then you would have two RTP transports that are effectively the same thing, because both of them can send whatever RGB you want. Both of them receive all the RTP you want.

J

um So we'd have to decide if what it, what it means for bundle, uh but you could have different RTP transports on different bundle groups.

J

So next slide answering un's question: I think we could say these could go in the same bundle group with say an audio and video M line, and the way that would work is that RTP transport would be able to receive any of the audio and video packets.

J

uh You would just be able to choose what to do with it. You know you get like a second copy. Basically, and then, when you send, you can send whatever you want.

J

um You just can't duplicate the srtp for the from the audio and video, but you if you wanted to send um with the same ssrcs or mids or whatever you could.

J

So uh that's it for my slides. um My big question is whether we should do something like this here or whether, like the screen share, did create a community group. That's separate and do the work out there I've heard a lot of people say they want to do it here and that it wouldn't be as good out in a separate community group, but is this incremental approach to an RTP transport, something that people would be happy with doing here.

A

I'm trying to queue yeah and.

B

Iran was here.

A

G

Yeah so um uh I think probably here um in terms of where the discussion should happen um and on on the API in general. um It basically as I think the incremental approach better um uh is basically RTP and Js um with safety, bumpers uh for cc and so forth.

G

um One thing I would say is uh this has to be real time this would this needs to be workers and and probably should be workers only in my opinion, um and doing this on, the main thread is almost certainly the wrong thing to do.

G

J

Okay, thanks for your feedback, that's that's good feedback.

E

uh Yeah I would second what Randall says: I think the the r and RDP the rnrtp here is real time, and so we can already do this on data channels, which are main thread, but we have gotten concerns with that. So we in the spec we made data channels transferable to workers. Also. Some of these examples here mention uh create encoded streams, which I believe is non-standard I, think that's Chrome's main thread version of the uh insertable streams.

E

uh Sorry, the webrtc encoder, transform, API and I think Safari and Firefox instead implement the RTC RTP script. Transform so I would love to know how it interfaces with that, especially since some of the examples seem to involve uh communicating both with the transform API and the more main thread, the rest of the peer connection API. So that seems like a challenge, but aside from that, I think uh It looks interesting to be able to to do this sort of stuff.

E

uh It begs a lot of questions perhaps, but it's uh that's to be expected of a new, exciting things.

A

So I met somebody here and, um and so yes, this is interesting- yeah one thing that they started wondering about, plus why they don't have a get RTP transport operator on the play connection that allows you to get the RDP transport and do all this wonderful things to it from.

B

A

Share connection.

J

Is that a question you want me to answer.

A

Yeah, if you have, if you think of it, foreign.

J

I was trying to stay within the bounds of what sdp has negotiated. So if I called get RTP transport and I haven't stuck that wild card typing in the sdp, then I'm bound to what is negotiated and what I can send.

J

And maybe we could do that where we, you know, you call get RTP transport, but then, if you call send and you provide an RTP packet that doesn't fit within the envelope- that's negotiated, it gives you an error um so that might work.

J

So but I I was trying to avoid a situation where we gave you an API that let you send any RTP packet, but then in an sdp it said only certain RTP packets and then it didn't match I mean I would actually be fine with that. But I think other people would not be fine with that. So I was trying to avoid that good.

A

Good answer, um of course, yes, that's to be worked out. I'm, like yeah, my my friends at Mozilla I, do think that the experimentation was on. The main thread is beneficial, but.

F

Yeah so I wanted a comment about uh workers. I do think it would be useful to allow it uh because um there might be. You might want to put the whole pipeline in the worker um and I think what we're talking about is um what one question which would arise there is: um is an RTP transport indivisible, like would would you be able to have the receive and send Pipeline on different workers?

F

um If it's a single rtb transfer percent and received, then you couldn't do that you'd have to have both both to send and receive on the same worker. um So that's that's kind of a question. We encountered that with web transport, where it was. It was difficult to use multiple workers uh because the web, the web transfer, was this kind of Monolithic thing. That's.

J

F

To think about.

J

Yeah, that's a really good point. Bernard um I do think we could separate them into the sender part in the receiver part because they really don't have much to do with each other.

F

Right right so.

J

That's good and.

F

Then you could transfer the resender to one worker and the receiver to another worker and and have them on separate pipelines. Yeah.

A

um Yeah so with the same uh thing about uh workers, I think it's where it belongs clearly, so we need to investigate that um the interaction with Weber 720 transform I, don't know, that's not the primary thing. I I would try to look at, uh but maybe in the future.

A

We could look at that and I would concentrate for some uh like ltp transport, uh for a nice custom like sending site doesn't collects and that's fishing inside you're using that codex as well, which is the kind of thing I will try to concentrate on and uh yeah I had a first number that I forgot uh yeah. The third command is so we have a discussion for you, let's say hey. We want to do.

C

Processing under a friendly.

A

Role and we have discussions yeah, we should do things and.

A

It seems we should make a decision at some point on either one of them. I do not see how we could have both basically and I, wonder how we can recognize somehow with discussion and uh get.

H

To a decision there.

A

On this design, because.

H

A

That's a major decision to make the design of this kind of apis.

J

Okay, uh is there anyone else, I I, don't see the queue so.

B

A

The in the participant list and uh and zoom.

L

Yeah uh Tim Panton um I I I do um I, like this I think it's interesting, I kind of got uses for it, I wonder if you've looked at um anybody else's apis in this space, I'm thinking of um Pion has a thing called interceptors, which I think does something quite similar, um so it might be worth like looking at at that and I think what what would be good if I remember it rightly to steal from that is the ability to just get packets for a particular ssrc so that don't have to do the demultiplexing in JavaScript I think it would be nice to kind of demultiplex in like in the C plus plus and and if you're, only interested in the audio.

L

Then you only get the audio um or and I I. Don't know how practical that is in your in your um scheme, but it kind of feels attractive to me.

J

Yeah I think you're right that I am familiar with Pion and interceptors and I'm also familiar with uh the libweber TC API, for attaching to the rgbtmxer, so um I I think you're right that it would be a a good optimization to to be able to have the the browser basically do the filtering on the packets uh instead of in the JavaScript as a performance optimization for situations where there are a lot of packets- and you only want some of them and I think we could build that into the UK. So that's good feedback.

J

A

So one thing I, thought sort of when and business talks about so about the STP. Remember is that if you have to have this additional sdp thing in order to do this, then using this API will prevent you from interoperating identities.

A

And that might be a limitation in way I can use it.

A

Because everyone's talking to themselves, but if they want us to support interoperation, then then being able to use this API without having to to insist that both ends implement. It might be a good thing for now.

F

um There was just one thing: I wanted to mention, which is at some point: we've talked about composability, where um we separated creating the RTP packet from sending it.

F

um That would be useful if you wanted to send the RTP packet over some other transport like a web transport or something so I was wondering if this was still possible or whether that had somehow Fallen by the wayside.

J

Oh so you're suggesting that you could just use a serialization like create an array buffer fights for me.

F

J

uh Yeah I mean that doesn't seem too hard if we to be able to build in.

F

Yeah I mean I. You you'd have to be able to supply it with an MTU like in the case, if you were sending it over a web transport stream or something you'd want an infinite mpu versus you know, uh or if it was web transport. Datagrams you'd want a smaller MTU than the one that was on the wire, but.

J

uh The quicker sorry, uh quick response to the previous comment from Harold um I do think we could do something where you call git RTP transport with existing sdp and you could receive any of those transport. It's really on the send where you're constrained, uh and so that's, where we'd have to decide what rules there are what bumpers exist if you're using the existing sdp instead of the Wild Card STP.

J

Sorry Bernard I didn't mean to cut off your comment so.

A

J

A

So I wanted to ask about.

D

To be header, extensions mentioned that the transport CC extension.

A

Is going to be kind of external enough, so it's the idea that high serialized or impacted, but in my own extensions there and.

D

They're done and it's gonna unparce it and add another entry in the list and.

J

No, no, the idea. The idea is you provide the unserialized values, your ssrc sequence, number time stamp, payload header, the pairs of ID and header extension values you want and then it adds the browser being. It adds whatever header extension. It needs for congestion control which in many cases will be the transport CC uh and then it serializes it and increase it.

I

B

Can't control that.

J

That header extension because then you'd be able to mess with the congestion control thanks.

E

Sorry I raised my hand again, so um this might be a detailed comment at this stage, but uh I do notice on the slide.

E

It says on RTP packet and so um I want to make sure we don't repeat the mistake of websockets that had on message where there's no back pressure, where the if the JavaScript client, if the JavaScript receiver cannot keep up, it just means it's you're, building up JavaScript buffers, uh so it might be better to to have an API that at least even if there's not back pressure in rqp at least lets the the browser receive buffer, know that JavaScript isn't keeping up.

J

Yeah we're gonna have to discuss uh you know, do we use what wz streams or do we use events, and that kind of thing and some of the examples I used a DOT right, I think I had a DOT writable, um so yeah we're gonna have to have that discussion, but that is a little bit a little bit down the road.

J

E

J

So were there any other hands, yeah.

A

C

B

See anyone else on.

A

The queue I said, my sense of the room is that, yes, there is much interest most important tour.

A

The loudests thing erase this, but we need to sort out the thread stories.

A

That is the main chat versus not mentioned, and what objects need to either have their lifestyle extended or be able to be designed that this this side, that's transferable,.

A

And other discussions about this, whether we want to interrupt or where we want.

B

A

Just uh special applications.

A

But my sense is that, yes, we should continue on this work and that's uh the people in this room who are kind of advised selection, though yeah kind of a favor doing it here.

A

That common sense.

J

That sounds about right. According to the notes, I took and sounds great to me: I'm happy to continue uh driving the discussion, uh making more specific proposals and integrating the feedback so far into those.

A

So the first item on the list is to is to discard this running mode.

A

We create the new document for use and extension. Existing extension document I think this should this is big enough.

B

A

It wasn't that much discussion here.

A

A

The model of sap negotiation is that with Exchange sdp offer answer and that configures the available code eclipses in the encoder and the pack capacitor, and we have set parameters that announced, that is, that called the references that allows the set parameters allows you to pick the codec specific I want to use this product from that list. That's a very new API, but uh in the case where we have a chance to transform, sits between the encoder and the packet place now in strictly on the model of of of a single transform.

A

Stp of France will configure the encoder on the backup I say without knowing about the transfer without caring about the transfer. That means that that we're effectively lying about what we're sending and I'm not telling the truth is usually an instant repeat of confusion.

A

So we need some new functionality.

A

So, basically, always that I described was that, before negotiating with here, both sides of the application using a chadstone should tell sap negotiation the name of the Codex, that they want to use the name that they want to use all the stuff that is sent on a Wire after the transform and before the other side transfer doesn't matter what they call it.

A

But the two sides.

B

A

Agree on the next and if the degree then offer answer why no change to the current rules will assign a payload type for that particular payload.

A

Okay, now I have a product that the platform doesn't know anything about when you have idle type assignments and we have an encoder that encodes video frame authority of names according to what it does and that encoding has the same effect, which is a different way.

A

A

Before we start sending data, we have to tell the enclosure what they call true specifically.

A

The transform has to know what data to expect and we have to tell the transform what channel type it needs to assign to the to the frames after a transfer the same day as the same side, we will get packets here from the network.

A

You need to tell the transform, but this is the phenotype you expect, and you need to tell yourself from what payroll type produced so that the decoder can do the right thing and tell the decoder that, yes, you need to become these frames using this okay, another transform transforms.

A

So I make two changes or propose two changes since since July translation, one is the that I had a set codec operator, it's.

A

An a packet that's attributes to on the on the code that we negotiate.

A

um By the way, the set code API works, the result that the simpler way is to turn the packet by electricity you're going to do this, this factorization for this payment.

A

Another discussion I had was about Mineplex so because.

A

The payment type is, in a short short help from Minecraft.

A

And the mindset is the name that uniquely identifies this particular and cool performance.

A

So a frame in the current spec is.

A

Assumed that anyone who wants to to understand what's the speed of time means we'll have access to the sap, be able to do the decoding from that.

A

You also getting get parameters.

A

That, if the metadata that we're setting we're reading and setting on the frame, what's the Mind type and not the paper, then it could allow the end program decoders practice.

A

Children with just producing the Mind packs and the payload Tech mapping did wouldn't have to be something that sounds from candidates. The facility assistance I have friends too and the mind types, the frames for other reasons, but we haven't done that so far, still favorite thing so.

A

This is about that description, more texts just more or lessons, so the three questions in front of the videos are baby.

A

Are we still okay with pursuing this particular approach and that's the end otherwise I'll say yes,.

A

I'll be okay with the approach of telling the Packers backfires according to the specific rules.

A

um So do a switch from halotype demand type when it comes to identify which rules with which component a frame has.

A

B

A

We have uh so Hendrick and Bernardino and.

A

My only like whatever the API is, we just need to make sure that if you split flop between different codecs that the Codex switch and the title type switch happens at the right time, so that there isn't the race. But the approach makes sense to me.

A

Think about it. You should the configuration will happen before you start sending data, but now.

F

Yeah, um one of the things that we found that's kind of interesting is the um the behavior of the packetizers. Isn't always that well defined so I'll I'll give you a weird example of Hippo discovered that the h.264 packetizer does not dropped uh Now units, it doesn't understand, that's turns out, it could be a useful property, but it's also not a property. That's defined anywhere, um so it it I'm I'm a little bit concerned about potential non-interoperability, which could um be derived here unless we specify with some of these things, do a little bit more.

A

Yeah, that's uh listen called sit in the idea that seems to be. They have useful properties like this. This is a structure, that's where it's.

A

So uh there's a non-stand by practitioner mode in the intronical growth, which has approximately the same property. That is single in a non-standard way, which is.

A

That's that's historical reasons. I want I want to replace it with something better. Thank you. So packet persons are an interesting subject being that's well defined by myself.

E

Yeah so so my comment was also about uh questions around packetizer and that's not agree. It's not well defined. It seems to be the way we talk about it when we say the h.264 packetizer we're saying the packetizer that this codec uses, uh which I guess in the context of end-to-end encryption, is quite reasonably understandable because it's the underlying codec that we're encoding on top of right, and so it makes sense, I guess to keep the packetizer the same, but it's still a little.

E

um The API still feels overly flexible for the use case of merely signaling what we're doing in with end-to-end encryption, so I'm wondering if it solves, also solves some of the it's not super clear how you would use it uh to avoid some of the issues we have with encoded, transform like uh if you're using h.264, for example, you quickly find out that there are certain bytes, you can't touch. Otherwise uh you know things don't work and nothing happens. So I'm.

B

Wondering yeah.

E

A

L

A

Rights is most likely with the encryption.

A

Is that too I didn't set the set the packetizer to one that is known to have minimum.

A

Interference with the packet conference, for instance, we found that the vpa pack, the pack person, tries to parse the packet in order to extract the QP value from the frame, because it wants to know that before it starts decoding it. It's a. It was a weird designation and, of course, the HTC four pack places lead back feedback by a series, not behaving terribly well, when you give it to non-natural 64 data, so I won't eventually have to have a have a row, a packet player so that like I, can tell.

A

If that's one of the sentence that doesn't do anything. My name Skip wait if Bernard Bernard might have commentary, but it might be named something else.

F

Skip folks would love that.

E

And I also I also had some questions about some methods that were in the previous meeting, but they're not in the slide so, but but also just in isolation. Switching from Plato type to mime type seems like an improvement to me.

A

E

What you're saying about that? That seems like an improvement to me, uh the payload types always seemed like a low level thing.

G

Yeah I was just gonna, make a comment on the payload type to mime type thing: I mean I I, don't know what you're buying by doing that, I understand that, like okay, mime types are sort of a higher level concept, but it's just it's really. You can't use arbitrary things. You have to use something. That's been negotiated, um it's basically just a lookup, so you know it appear. You know, I I, don't know the advantages and I suppose it's a small perf thing, but I don't think it matters a great deal either way.

H

A

A

I

A

Case that was described earlier, using the main type would actually avoid having to think about whether or not the two pack connections have that have assigned the same payroll type, the same format. So that's a slight, so architecture cleanup.

A

There's certainly a small negative performance impact in that comparing integers is strictly faster than comparing strengths.

G

Yes, you're doing it a lot yeah the.

A

Only thing it wants to prefer that another person you can optimize that by passing the same object every time and looking up looking at the objects instead of looking at the strings, that's the kind of implementation that can be performed. Yeah I mean okay,.

K

A

K

K

Statistic, foreign.

B

A

What are the other results.

K

Yeah without you, there is.

A

No way I have forgotten, people asked to add it, because they wanted to have the information readily available till transform without having to look at the people and that I have forgotten what this use case was.

A

I I should have included the number of his uh issue.

A

It's probably somewhere.

D

A

This is dumb question but further mind type now things for one table types: it comes free, independent attack without the manifold. Yes, there are.

A

Prostitute myself.

A

I, don't think it's for specific cases. I think you actually need to change it. uh The user agent can handle it because it knows the encoder, and it knows the packetizer and.

B

If you're changing.

A

Like laser anyway, it will know how to probably developing itself um I think it's good to be able to switch from Target. We need that for a train, for instance, when you are actually starting at Facebook.

A

So one question would be uh how much Flex week did we want to to we only per frame, or you know you want it to do like just once. That's a question uh that would be writing how the API would be shaped, because.

A

I, don't think it won't like to allow uh the.

M

A

The United VBA.

A

Like a diaper so.

B

That's that's a great that's a.

A

Design decision there that we should make uh I, don't think we should go there at least initially um I think the main goal here is you selected just before you're doing your transform and instead of hitting the HTC for bucketizer, you want to use vegetable at some point: yeah. It gets based on device. So.

C

A

Almost a binary decision, like am I using the one I'm sitting or am I using the the.

B

New pocketizer that solves.

A

B

Maybe in the future it will not be binary.

A

But uh so yeah.

B

It's it's based on that, then it's a different impact.

A

C

Any case I think yeah.

A

If you're going to say that is not matching with what you actually encoding any questions, okay, so so we're setting the packages to handle the stuff that exists after the transform and if the transformation just a lower, then what came in as CPA will no longer says.

A

Yeah and uh basically we need a genetic spectator and maybe the API would be safe, use generator and that's yes, so one one. So one reason for the for the current assignments that we don't have it yet so then brought the creative events. The other one is that so.

A

We have kind of survives with uh using standard packages for a while, now and I'd like to be interoperable with their sort of.

A

I, don't want that what I want to to deploy this API in browsers yeah and have and have them be able to interoperate with what's currently out there.

A

Then, when we have when we have academic fertilizers, I'd like to say maybe.

A

Then you really have to deployed something that is not useful anymore, so a little it will be useful until all the old stuff has come away.

A

Yeah I would prefer that we we would have the universal packetizer to and.

H

A

K

So when are you suggesting that your entire different.

B

Spec Forum.

A

B

A

H

A

Could be uh I would look, it's actually API instead of architecture, you can use it back inside the binary and there would be just one in value which would be a IDF generation.

A

But more interested in the uh in the list of architecture packages.

A

One way would be to have the back pressure.

A

um Just be final, a couple of useful values now and say that we can add row when it arrives.

A

So identifying the back person is note that there's an.

B

A

Switch from heat to 95 I see people are bringing up both sides of that came back. That's on the huge sorry.

L

Yeah I'm kind of like maybe a little early to be saying this, but I wonder how this relates to the proposal that Peter's just made. So it feels like there's a kind of a big piece of overlap in that it would be nice to see maybe some of the same Concepts appearing in one. That would be usable in the other. Like you know, packetizers, for example, like it.

C

Would be nice if.

L

Whatever you create an API for Packer dozers here is something that could be used in Peter's, API or maybe the other way around. I don't know.

A

Yeah I I, think of them as some of our other, because the main main thing with this API is the is to control the sap negotiation pattern. All the sap negotiation controls the control standpoint encode, the encode sacrifice defect as process. While it is proposed and really goes to the goes to what happens with the packets after they are available, Tech advice and before they were Deepak advanced yeah. So you should be careful to make sure the there's some alignments.

A

Between them, what the? What the down, what the underside of a packet lines around the on the top side of the transport look like.

A

But I don't see that much weight here.

L

A

L

What I'm really saying is that they feel like tools that I would use together in the same application, and so it'd be good if the apis were somewhat congruent, but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's too early to know that.

A

Yeah I also like to keep them independent in the sense that if one takes a year, not another, um the other one's sort of foreign.

A

Explosive and I think the I think I think the general principle is is accepted, but how to identify the back classes. Discussion.

B

A

To be defined, okay I need I need to read on this traffic, because that's that's not what the strike campus. That's just about. I.

F

Think you need to reload the uh below the uh slides yeah. So then they showed up yep.

A

So back back to the web of the extended use case, let's switch to one plus one. We have had kept up.

F

Right so um the next uh use case in section three two is the low latency broadcast with fan out. So this is what it looks like currently uh with N15 and n39.

F

um Now one thing we had discussed in July was that this is a little. This lacks some clarity because it used the word low, latency and in uh the issue there was a question of what that meant exactly and also that was confusing because it was mixing uh potentially quite different uh use cases.

F

So we're going to talk a little bit about that next slide.

F

Oh Harold, do you want to talk to this one yeah.

A

This is what's uh go through the the thing that product was discovered in earlier moving frames between pieces to Spectrum themes, a modified metal data and uh we'll discuss this.

F

Yeah, so this slide came from July is: is this still the uh proposed requirement Edition or is uh they're going to be some other PR.

A

Yeah, this is the silver proposal requirements. Okay,.

F

All right so uh can we have an action item to actually submit that as a PR? Yes, okay, so I did want to um talk about PR 123, which is to attempt to clarify this low latency broadcast case.

F

um So next slide.

F

All right, so um this use case originally was submitted by Tim Panton and at the time when it was originally uh submitted, it was focused on auctions embedding and that isn't just low latency, that's ultra low latency and what I mean by that is glass, gas, latency less than 500 milliseconds, and that's actually an important clarification because we see uh web Regency is actually popular for that.

F

That's what Whip and web are for are used for and also it helps distinguish it from some other cases, because if you're trying to get to that latency data Channel fan out, may not be what you want um now. That's for a couple of reasons. One is that you may not be able to handle the ordered reliable mode um because of all the retransmissions, but even in the unreliable unordered transport um it.

F

It might add too much latency, because then you have to do your own uh potential, retransmission and or something like a custom FEC and the other aspect of it is is, if you're doing that, most likely you're, not using a raw format you're using something like cmaf, and that adds the overhead of cmap containerization decontainerization, um which is kind of wasteful of DRM, is not needed, um but also you're, probably not rendering with you may not be rendering with webrtc.

F

You would be rendering with low latency MSC, which isn't standardized, and so the latency can vary.

F

So the point we're trying to make here is that um the distinction calling this ultra low latency clarifies that it's really not about that kind of beta Channel Farm fan out and also the data Channel fan out requirements are covered elsewhere, like the file sharing use case in section three, one has a requirement for data channel on workers, and the iot use case has a requirement for control over Max free, Transmissions timeout, which would be something you would use for, like a partially reliable uh uh on ordered transport.

F

So uh basically, what we want to do is is clarify that we're really talking about ultra low latency here and also motivate uh some of the requirements that Harold just mentioned, uh to make it clear that this isn't data Channel form uh fan app next uh slide.

F

So this is the proposed pr123 basically changed. The name of the use case to ultra low latency broadcast, with fan out um clarify that that is a glass of gasoline, see less than 500 milliseconds and um focus on the auctions, betting and financial news, which are the ultra low latency, rather than throwing in uh other stuff, like webinars in a company Town Hall, which um actually can take considerably higher latency and can be done with data Channel plan out.

F

B

F

Lot of the uh other requirements remain the same like the limited in our interactivity than that traversal stuff, like that and I also removed Pier 5, because that's a data Channel fan out uh implementation, uh Dolby is, is uh whoever you see based streaming. So it's more in the ultra low latency category, I, don't know about type.

F

Any comments on this PR.

A

Ior, so did you try we're trying to remove the RPC data channels from from The Experience plan.

F

uh Well, I wanted to clarify this use case, wasn't about data Channel fan out because it wouldn't meet the latency requirements. So that's why I removed here five, because that's a data Channel fan out.

A

I was wondering if you wanted to remove data channel from 9339.

F

Oh yeah, actually that that's a good uh yeah, that's a good idea, uh Harold! Yes, it's that should uh that should be removed. Yes, it would be transported via RTP, not Theta. Cap.

B

E

A

E

um uh So yes, removing the data, Channel I, guess um begs the question of: are these um new use? Cases is the fact that something's already solved is that are we not tracking those use cases anymore um and I guess I'm, finding the way, just uh clarification of whether we should remove data Channel there also when we say ultra low latency, uh it's still a bit confusing to me because you know webrtc is usually you know less than 100 milliseconds.

E

So what do we call that? So? Is that real time and then Ultra latency is 100 to 500.

E

C

Long as we include numbers, maybe.

E

That might be easier if we include the numbers in the PR yeah.

F

I assumed it was, it was a little bit more late, potentially more latency than webrtc because of the fan out, um usually when I think of whatever you see I. Think of some going. You know the packets traveling from the conferencing unit to the browser without being peer-to-peered along the way. So that's why I made it 500 milliseconds, um that's also the point at which um you know it was also to try to clarify that.

F

It's not something like hls with a data Channel fan out that that wouldn't wouldn't fit in there I guess removing the data. Channel might also clarify that.

A

So question um so.

B

A

It's got to be comfortable, but it's used so I get it. But it's ltp from the initial sender to to one person in the network and the Investments we're.

B

A

Link daily detection, or maybe a mini transport, or it's a use case specifically, so that is both the firstly and the second link, because I could see that I don't know being fast enough in some networks for the second link. But the first link must be our conditions.

F

Yeah that that's a good question is: does it have to be RTP all the way through I think the main thing was that it couldn't be cmap all the way through because of the the MSC and the cmaf would add too much latency to make this make sense.

F

A

F

Yeah I mean you: could you could as an example uh you and you could you could de-packetize the RTP and uh Shuffle it around as a frame and um that you know I, don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's probably adds latency, but um you know, then that wouldn't be that wouldn't be RTP. It would be more like Peter's web codex thing, but uh it wouldn't have the same kind of latency. That c map or MSC would so that brought that might work.

A

So at least the examples that you mentioned in Python zombies, they're doing like not responsible for both the first and the second links.

F

Yeah I couldn't quite hear that uh yeah.

L

B

L

I can answer that because I've been playing with both um their RTP there's, um both cops are RTP, I, don't know, there's no point in which they are um I mean at some point.

L

Somebody will build a frame so that put it into a cache or something so for free transmission purposes, but but it's essentially RTP from the first top to the second and and and and onwards so each and it may in the end, if it's a big fan out May and end up being like three hops, but all of those hops are pure RTP.

A

A

And it's your party to for our friends then in the middle. Then then the question and then it's a different solution as well. So that's why I'm trying to figure out whether specifications right, whether it's not really believable and maybe python, is only since.

A

You can recite these cases yeah and it's fast forwarding or it's like yeah.

B

A

Can have some Village foreign.

L

Pretty hard to um understand I'm afraid, but.

F

Okay, well Tim. Can you give us your opinion, since this was your use case.

L

Well, um yeah I mean it was a while ago, when I raised it I I think it's still I mean there's an interesting um like there's a genuine interest in this and and in in low enough latency, for either I mean to these environments and I. Think the only way to achieve it is is RCP with this little manipulation as possible on the way through and we've just built the thing for um pit Crews to watch over the shoulder drivers in race, cars and like they really know.

L

If, if you're more than a quarter, I mean they know if you're a quarter of a second behind, but they can live with that, um because they've got real-time radios and less than real-time video and so like it's really perceptible, and then the fan art is that other people in the crew also want to watch it.

L

um Maybe up in the stands or whatever. So it's quite a um it's a bit of a niche that we're dealing with I mean dolby's, obviously doing something on a much bigger scale, but but in that environment um we don't want to have a server there. We don't want to have like massive infrastructure um to have to deliver to a pit, or you know backstage or whatever it ends up getting used backstage the Nordstrom house or something like that.

L

So um I mean maybe phrase the question somewhere on a PR and I can like answer it in detail. But that's my current feeling, I think. There's still a thing here, that's good to have in the document.

F

Okay, uh yeah, if you you can review the pr that would be great.

F

F

Do we have any more slides here? Let's see.

F

I guess that's it for this.

A

Carefully it might let you out there so, but how do you want to to summarize the next steps Associates.

F

uh Well, I think this. This section was uh in next steps for the use case.

A

K

C

B

Think next step.

A

Is the motions.

A

Continue discussion.

A

B

F

Okay, so this is the last section before we wrap up and uh I guess it was intended to be just to keep track of things that we need to do going forward. Next steps actions, CFCs stuff, like that, as a result of what we've talked about today,.

A

So it happened so they started running at CFC that I have heard so far.

A

We have a number of PRS that serve where we have suggestions for improvements or things that need business discussed a little bit further, but I.

B

A

Them as see any of the things we have discussed earlier, I think not.

A

Thank you and get get wrong that we have to have a discussion on whenever you answer us. We want to take two skirts back and think about this enough.

A

At least move forward, so we can.

E

I think uh individual presenters probably know their own action items to some extent. There was some discussion of of new documents, though, and hopefully that's captured in the minutes.

A

Yeah, so we have, the transport craft seems to be a Clear candle for a new government.

A

Right the cares creates that document or how does that work so.

B

A

The I think the standard question is to create an unofficial draft and then ask questions for India memory. Processor.

A

Then then they have to ask both where for adoptionists and then they can have first public working for the public working traffic, it's PWD and then, after that it turns out they're working jobs. Trying to work on it.

A

I feel the stop working.

A

A

A

So just remind that, you might feel that we have more meetings that give us the chance to rehash. We see you so early find new ones completely.

A

Including a couple of shorts tomorrow.

A

And that for breakout sessions that should be of interesting.

A

A

A

Workers quality of service so but I moved it to a breakup to get a wider audience, because right now we have only experimented with web art. Sc people zoom in Google meet, but it's it's. Basically all the CPUs are now heterogeneous. You know big little course.

A

Workers have no way to give any hint below. If you want to optimize for performance view optimize for power. There are.

B

A

Few other things, so there were quite a few options where workers would have been up ideal. So yeah, that's one of the proposals so when, when I just got my time changed, so it should be just after break 14 30. in the performance track.

A

A

B

We had a joint meeting.

A

Where this is GM joint meeting with media and by that time it's Friday, okay,.

A

Salesman, folks.