Re: [whatwg] Media sink device selection on /

On 04/07/2014 06:20 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 7 Apr 2014, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 04/02/2014 07:52 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Ami Fischman wrote: Looks like we're back in business: Latest editor's draft: http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.

Re: [whatwg] Media sink device selection on /

On 04/02/2014 07:52 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Ami Fischman wrote: Looks like we're back in business: Latest editor's draft: http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/getusermedia.html Thanks. As a user, this scares me a lot. Why isn't it up to me to control this? I don't understan

Re: [whatwg] createObjectURL(stream) protocol issue

On 08/13/11 01:48, Darin Fisher wrote: Putting implementation details aside, I agree that it is a bit unfortunate to refer to a stream as a blob. So far, blobs have always referred to static, fixed-size things. This function was originally named createBlobURL, but it was renamed createObjectURL

Re: [whatwg] Enabling/disabling tracks in MediaStreams

Additional question: What is the scenario in which this behavioiur is useful? On 07/18/11 14:17, Tommy Widenflycht (ᛏᚮᛘᛘᚤ) wrote: I am very confused regarding the below paragraph from the latest spec: When a track in a MediaStream

Re: [whatwg] Proposal for a MediaSource API that allows sending media data to a HTMLMediaElement

Not a comment directly on the spec, but you might want to check what people are suggesting for interactive media handling in the WEBRTC working group. Streaming is different from interactive media, but it would be a shame to have incompatibilities that can be avoided. On 07/11/11 20:42, Aaro

[whatwg] Codecs (Re: PeerConnection feedback)

On 05/31/11 23:45, Ian Hickson wrote: On Sat, 9 Apr 2011, James Salsman wrote: > > Sorry for the top posting, but I would like to reiterate my considered > opinion that Speex be supported for recording. It is the standard > format available from Adobe Flash recording, low bandwidth, open sou

Re: [whatwg] Websockets: dropped packets? (Jonathan Chetwynd)

On 03/31/11 14:53, Bob Gezelter wrote: Jonathan, The WebSocket protocol currently presumes TCP as the underlying transport. TCP connections are an uninterrupted stream. If a packet is lost, the connection will be aborted. I do not believe that the TCP dependency is truly necessary or benefi

Re: [whatwg] MTU Size PeerConnection send method (was RE: PeerConnection feedback)

On 04/28/11 20:55, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: Wouldn't it be possible to abstract this away for the web developer? I.e. the send method should, like for WebSockets, not have a max size. Instead the sending UA would be responsible for chopping up (the receiving UA for re-assembling) the message

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection feedback

On 04/26/2011 09:16 AM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 04/26/11 00:27, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 04/22/11 00:27, Ian Hickson wrote: What is HTTP-in-SDP? I misquoted - you said "Currently, the HTML spec includes instructions on how to identif

Re: [whatwg] MTU Size PeerConnection send method (was RE: PeerConnection feedback)

On 04/24/11 11:34, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Ian Hickson wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011, Justin Uberti wrote: On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Ian Hickson wrote: This has made UDP packets larger than the MTU pretty useless. So I guess the question is do we want to limit the

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection feedback

On 04/26/11 00:27, Ian Hickson wrote: On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 04/22/11 00:27, Ian Hickson wrote: What is HTTP-in-SDP? I misquoted - you said "Currently, the HTML spec includes instructions on how to identify the stream in SDP" - I was asking for chapter an

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection feedback

On 04/22/11 00:27, Ian Hickson wrote: > > > and procedures for identifying the stream in SDP (if we continue to > > > use SDP) - I believe SDP implicitly assumes that all the streams it > > > describes are RTP streams. > > > > That doesn't seem to be the case, but I could be misinter

[whatwg] Initial video resolution (Re: PeerConnection feedback))

On 04/13/11 13:35, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: -Original Message- From: Ian Hickson [mailto:i...@hixie.ch] Sent: den 12 april 2011 04:09 To: whatwg Subject: [whatwg] PeerConnection feedback On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Stefan H kansson LK wrote: The web application must be able to define the

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection constructor: Init string format

On 04/08/11 18:51, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 4:41 AM, Harald Alvestrand mailto:har...@alvestrand.no>> wrote: My alternate proposal: -- The initialization string looks like this: { “stun_s

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection feedback

Since Ian seems to prefer to jumble all threads on a given group of issues together in one message, I'll attempt to use the same format this time. On 04/12/11 04:09, Ian Hickson wrote: On Tue, 29 Mar 2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote: A lot of firewalls (including Google's, I believe

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection constructor: Init string format

BTW, I haven't been on this list that long... if anyone has advice on whether such discussions are better as buganizer threads or as whatwg mailing list threads, please give it! Harald On 04/08/11 10:41, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Adding this to the public archive: The cu

[whatwg] PeerConnection constructor: Init string format

Adding this to the public archive: The current (April 8) version of section 9.4 says that the config string for a PeerConnection object is this: --- The allowed formats for this string are: "TYPE 203.0.113.2:3478" Indicates a specific IP address and port for the server.

[whatwg] Recording interface (Re: Peer-to-peer communication, video conferencing, and related topics (2))

> I also believe that the recording interface should be removed from this > part of the specification; there should be no requirement that all > streams be recordable. Recording of streams is needed for some use cases unrelated to video conferencing, such as recording messages. Having a record

[whatwg] Reusing SRTP (Re: Peer-to-peer communication, video conferencing, and related topics (2))

On 03/29/11 03:00, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > > Is there really an advantage to not using SRTP and reusing the RTP > format for the data messages? Could you elaborate on how (S)RTP would be used for this? I'm all in favour of defering a

[whatwg] UDP size (Re: Peer-to-peer communication, video conferencing, and related topics (2))

On 03/29/11 03:00, Ian Hickson wrote: > It is stated that the data size can be up to 65467 bytes in "send()". > Our network guys tell us that this is unrealistic to get over such big > chunks using UDP. Is that true? I thought they'd just get fragmented at the IP level, but would still make i

Re: [whatwg] Peer-to-peer and stream APIs

On 03/25/11 15:25, Satish Sampath wrote: I agree that the WHATWG draft looks clearer at first glance. Having two different proposals of such similar nature requires everyone interested in them to read and digest before figuring out how they differ specifically. And there would be differences in u

Re: [whatwg] An RTC Session API proposal

On 03/24/11 20:45, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Of course it turned out that I had overlooked a corporate security policy. While I can share a document to individual accounts, I can't publish it for everyone to look at. The document is attached. But the mailing list did not like the size o

[whatwg] An RTC Session API proposal

The proposal that I have put together, which is not detailed to the same level as the PeerConnection API, is here: https://docs.google.com/a/google.com/document/pub?id=1_lFKBgjNMVy98TMZT0kZ67RD57j1aL7ldPzv5zcJpgw Note: It does NOT contain functions for camera/microphone access; I'm happy to li

Re: [whatwg] EventSource - Handling a charset in the content-type header

On 03/24/11 07:14, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Julien Chaffraix wrote: the EventSource specification states the current content-type header should match the string "text/event-stream". However following some bugs opened inside the WebKit project [1], we relaxed the content-type check

[whatwg] Masking and threat models (Re: PeerConnection: encryption feedback)

On 03/24/11 08:44, Adam Barth wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: The STUN server is used to obtain your own "public" IP address, for constructing candidate lists. The STUN server is not involved

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection: encryption feedback

On 03/24/11 01:13, Matthew Kaufman wrote: On 3/23/2011 3:17 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote: Is there really an advantage to not using SRTP and reusing the RTP format for the data messages? I'd go one further... why not DTLS-SRTP for the media and DTLS with some other header shim for the

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection: encryption feedback

On 03/23/11 23:43, Ian Hickson wrote: On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 03/18/11 21:19, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Adam Barth wrote: So, the salt and the nonce play different roles. The salt is to make sure the message appears random if you

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection: encryption feedback

On 03/18/11 21:19, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Adam Barth wrote: So, the salt and the nonce play different roles. The salt is to make sure the message appears random if you haven't read the spec (and so don't know the salt). The nonce is to prevent the attacker from

Re: [whatwg] PeerConnection: encryption feedback

Is there really an advantage to not using SRTP and reusing the RTP format for the data messages? This is a well-known and well-analyzed encryption format, with reasonably known security properties and library support (from libraries that already have to be included in order to support audio/vide

Re: [whatwg] Peer-to-peer communication, video conferencing, , and related topics

Up front statement, orthogonal to the details of the specification: I've discussed this interface somewhat with Ian before in private, and don't agree with his approach on several points - both technical and organizational. I also don't believe that quick iteration and rapid prototyping is be

Re: [whatwg] Microphone Device API

On 02/28/11 16:10, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: On 2/28/11, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 02/28/11 15:55, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: On 2/28/11, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 02/28/11 15:35, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: In effect, you want to create pipelines in JS/ES? I need pipelines that can be

Re: [whatwg] Microphone Device API

On 02/28/11 15:55, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: On 2/28/11, Harald Alvestrand wrote: On 02/28/11 15:35, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: In effect, you want to create pipelines in JS/ES? I need pipelines that can be manipulated from Javascript, yes. Javascript is not a millisecond-precise language

Re: [whatwg] Microphone Device API

On 02/28/11 15:35, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote: On 2/28/11, Harald Alvestrand wrote: - Let users control access to microphone (whether my app can reach it or not) - Let users turn off and on their microphone Seems to be out of HTML's scope. I would very much want to avoid having the &q

Re: [whatwg] Microphone Device API

On 02/17/11 10:30, Jörn Zaefferer wrote: Hi, here at SoundCloud we're interested in an API for recording in the browser ( http://blog.soundcloud.com/2010/12/01/record/ ), without Flash and even on mobile browsers. The get things moving with the current idea of a device API ( http://www.whatwg.or

Re: [whatwg] Websockets Client API

I went through exactly the same exercise some days ago. It turns out that the "perfectly clear" specification is the specification of the Javascript runtime environment, not in the particular API specification. Even in that case, I would prefer to see a separate "open" call. It's just cleane

Re: [whatwg] ConnectionPeer experiences

Thank you Patrik, I enjoyed reading that! Questions: - In your experimentation, did you find any reasonable underlying protocol to map sendFile, sendBitmap and their corresponding callbacks to, or did you just ignore them for now? - In connecting, did you operate with connections going via a se