Sun Shin
Sun Shin
> This issue had an associated resolution in [WebRTC WG 2023-04-18 – (Issue 146: Exposing decode errors / SW fallback as an Event (Bernard))](https://www.w3.org/2023/04/18-webrtc-minutes.html#t03): > > > RESOLUTION: Waiting for...
> Related: [w3c/webcodecs#669](https://github.com/w3c/webcodecs/issues/669) > > Eugene Zemstov is currently looking at how to expose encode/decode errors in WebCodecs. This will include differentiating between types of errors (e.g. data errors versus...
> We are hoping that the approach can be used for both WebRTC and WebCodecs. The big question is whether we can differentiate errors to provide applications with the information...
Adding previous discussion security concern regarding on SW Fallback. I got the positive feedback on event style approach. - https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-stats/issues/730#issuecomment-1463119620
> Issue #114 did not include text describing what aspect requires clarification. Since there is already an Issue open relating to Section 3.2 (#103), perhaps we can use that as...
@aboba. I think the current issue has too many items for reviewing. So I am thinking about splitting this issue to 2 or 3 separate issues. How do you think...
> N51 is similar to [trr-int from RFC 4585](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4585.html#section-4.2). Specifically for TWCC you would need to extend the syntax similar to how RFC 8888 does it. I do think that...
> N49 is already covered by https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8834#section-5.1.4 > There are some existing discussions relating to LTR/RPSI: > > IETF discussion of RPSI: [aboba/hevc-webrtc#17](https://github.com/aboba/hevc-webrtc/pull/17) RPSI CL review: https://webrtc-review.googlesource.com/c/src/+/104880 (This review describes...
> I'm in favour of this, although it describes the mechanism rather than the outcome. One extra possible knob on the jitterbuffer issue. There are situations where it is undesirable...
@aboba, @fippo I have removed N49 regarding the discussion on RPSI which we have already got the answer from the last working group discussion. Also I have added new 51...