Re: [rtcweb] Payload Types assignments was Re: SV: [mmusic] WGLC of draft-ietf-rtcweb-use-cases-and-requirements-11

[Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>]

On 11 October 2013 04:05, Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]> wrote:
> This topic may have solutions that aren't being pursued in the RTCWEB WG.
>
> In particular:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/WD-discovery-api-20130924/
>
> describes a proposal for how to find objects on the local net (currently:
> announced via upnp and zeroconf), and
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/netinfo-api/
>
> describes a proposal for getting some information about how you're connected
> to the network.

Those solutions may not be appropriate for use in web browsers, in
much the same way that the "raw sockets" API is not.

> Getting that information may be out of scope for WEBRTC or RTCWEB.
> Putting that information to use once we have it may be in scope.

I find it more appropriate to say first that the problem is in scope,
then to look for solutions that you don't have to build yourself.  It
seems that if you want to be able to do priority marking, then a way
of discovering what markings do what is entirely in scope.

This is, of course, another case where the delineation of
responsibilities is required.  The W3C group you chair might decide to
use the discovery API, but there may be a need to assess the discovery
mechanisms here.

Other items on the list - a reasonable set of questions - seemed like
even larger problems.  If we're talking about a generic way to
advertise packet prioritization capabilities in a network, plus ways
to manage access to those features, that's a non-trivial enterprise.