[R-C] Modular Congestion Control in rtcweb

[Justin Uberti]

Browsers are trying to kill off plugins as fast as possible, so I don't
think deploying CC modules as plugins is viable.

The simplest thing would be to provide a generic C interface within
Chrome/Firefox so that a 3rd party could easily build a private version
with their own CC module inside it. We could then bundle implementations
that looked promising into official builds and allow applications to
negotiate them, like codecs. But we'd need to define a bunch of stuff to
make this happen.

On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Luca De Cicco <ldecicco at gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I guess the first step is to define an interface that  congestion
> control
> modules should use. We could base this effort on the requirements defined
> in draft-jesup-rtp-congestion-reqs.
>
> From the implementation point of view, we should discuss how to
> distribute congestion control algorithms. Should we allow distribution
> of cc algos
> as  browser plug-ins to extend the ones standardized by the webrtc effort?
>
> What do you think?
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Luca De Cicco, PhD, Eng.
> Politecnico di Bari
> Dipartimento di Elettrotecnica ed Elettronica
> Via Re David, 200 - Bari - ITALY
> Office: +39 080 596 3851
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Wesley Eddy <wes at mti-systems.com> wrote:
> > On 3/27/2012 7:25 AM, Luca De Cicco wrote:
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> this mail follows a thread I've recently started at rtcweb at ietf.org.
> >> and moved to this mailing list following Harald's suggestion.
> >>
> >> Since congestion control is a fundamental building block
> >> for a multimedia communication framework such as webrtc,
> >> I think it makes sense to design the framework to allow
> >> using different congestion control algorithms such as it is
> >> done with audio/video codecs.
> >>
> >> Are there any plans to make the congestion control algorithm
> >> modular for multimedia transmission via PeerConnections?
> >>
> >> This would require the peers to select a particular congestion
> >> control algorithm at the establishment of the PeerConnection
> >> similarly to how the DCCP [1] protocol does at kernel level.
> >>
> >
> > It seems like a good idea to me, in order to make it
> > potentially easier to deploy upgrades to the algorithms
> > over time (especially since it seems that the algorithms
> > will start as question marks).
> >
> > This also motivates the question of why RTP over DCCP
> > isn't a potential solution.
> >
> > --
> > Wes Eddy
> > MTI Systems
> _______________________________________________
> Rtp-congestion mailing list
> Rtp-congestion at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/rtp-congestion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/rtp-congestion/attachments/20120327/5bd8e1f4/attachment-0001.html>