-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 56
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
WebRTC-SVC (Scalable Video Coding) #837
Comments
The Security and Privacy self-review link is invalid. I think you mean https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-svc/#privacy and https://w3c.github.io/webrtc-svc/#security. |
We had a TAG review already done in #396 , is it not sufficient? |
@Orphis I had the same question. The only major change in the API from the last TAG review was the use of Media Capabilities API instead of getCapabililties(). |
#396 is 4 years old; so this request is to check that the intervening changes (in this spec and in the platform in general) don't warrant new feedback |
@torgo any ETA on this review? We're trying to assess when we might be ready to request CR |
It looks like almost everything in the spec has changed since our last review. |
Hi folks - Thanks for sending us this review. Given what @adoba wrote above concerning the changes and the fact that Media Capabilities API itself enjoys multi-stakeholder support, we'd like to close this review. However, it looks to us like a lot of additional changes were made to the spec. @dontcallmetom can you confirm that this is the only substantive change? |
Hi @dontcallmedom thanks for that clarification. On that basis we're happy to see this move forward. Thanks for bringing to us! |
I'm requesting a TAG re-review of WebRTC Scalable Video Coding.
WebRTC Scalable Video Coding allows to use the capabilities of modern video codecs to combine several video quality into a single encoded stream sent via WebRTC to an endpoint that can then dispatch the right substream to the different parties based on their receiving capabilities.
Further details:
You should also know that there was a previous review of this specification 4 years ago: #396
We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):
🐛 open issues in our GitHub repo for each point of feedback
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: