Re: [rtcweb] Default candidate pool size

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Sun, 18 May 2014 13:26 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2F61A00EA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 06:26:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.977
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.977 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iyEw7qz_Rj_Q for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 06:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31C941A00D7 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 May 2014 06:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id hi2so2945629wib.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 May 2014 06:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=VzZiqIzo/tk2KlU5tSX7hETSw8h3C0LLjy6XTnQv6C4=; b=HFCcSnx2bgaOPyz80VvkqevzAj7w1fThY5p/emcjkx+e2ESp0zyNlhKsVQJOAqllP2 YkCecR5OZ4A41Tlo6m2A0s4eS23uFQhzxJRTjr6ZqwAumRgVTqJpWgXAUPgoCij75E9d vtFADjt+iq4sGOAbUNDcBT+prumGhg/WyA81ff1EiNhKO3cC7byPeKhpUVm3e7K+bRQb 1+ssFzYFiTe3/is9aX58izKQP13c9yuvNLahDqmMOoJHtA2dNqrQf39sBlyESY8RTzSp NvAzipBx6DE5EiUobAfc84hXsRi2cWy/qN01k9hN7j3JSok42FgG6aQ9myFlSgoqeHwO bAzA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlUPSB3YrVSmT54jCalHyIQaBcsoGDFxKzbubNTdpZDbnZff6yJXeMUsPp1SXEqezRbV/Kn
X-Received: by 10.180.97.68 with SMTP id dy4mr7680446wib.49.1400419610466; Sun, 18 May 2014 06:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.218.198 with HTTP; Sun, 18 May 2014 06:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.168]
In-Reply-To: <FFCA477F-653D-46FF-93CE-4338EA856C5C@iii.ca>
References: <CABcZeBNdd9Ze1G3ZOpGHVKsGKBdhEAOzg4qt7XKnX75dhQyTkA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVjJTnTypBqL-YLMPwo0_RSdkMLgQvD+L03jwyt_ffDqQ@mail.gmail.com> <FFCA477F-653D-46FF-93CE-4338EA856C5C@iii.ca>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 06:26:10 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMS5x-wW24PAOOCMG8nM2Ac1fvi_y2XOekmgAeQHL056A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f46d044306ac6b2d2304f9ac99a0"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/YOysNuVHbfd6CNh33qn84GiezS8
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Default candidate pool size
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 13:26:53 -0000

As far as I know, this has been agreed on, but the W3C spec has
never been updated to reflect it.

-Ekr



On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:

>
> I think the JS app needs a way to say what it needs in the way of pool
> size.
>
>
> On May 12, 2014, at 12:15 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 11 May 2014 17:18, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> My personal opinion is that candidate pooling is useful here and we
> >> should probably leave the default in the hands of the browser. I
> >> could live with 0 however.
> >
> > I tend to agree.  The selection of a default seems like a good
> > opportunity for browsers to optimize.  For instance, a mobile device
> > might choose to defer gathering until it knows that it needs them;
> > whereas a device with a good source of power might prefer the latency
> > benefits associated with early gathering.  No point in us specifying
> > this.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> >
>
>