Subject: [rtcweb] the problem with (no) remote stats

From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:46:17 +0100

Concerning the remote stats aspect - While the discussion may indeed
belong to the w3c webrtc wg where the APIs are discussed, the argument I
believe should concern the rtcweb community as well. Statistics on a
two-ends (or multiple ends) session do not have too much use without
getting information from all hosts, and synchronizing it. These stats
will no longer serve the monitoring of one host but of two or more
browsers participating in the session. Thus the timestamp is critical.
Taking out the remote component of the object while simplifies the API
on the hosts makes the life of operators more complicated, as now
operators need to access remotely two (or more) hosts instead the one
and perform the time synchronization in their applications. 

Regards,

Dan

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:48:22 -0500

I believe that the decision was to structure the stats, not to remove
remote stats entirely.  Harald and I may have grossly different
remembrances.

On 8 November 2012 09:46, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:24:10 +0100

> remote stats entirely.  Harald and I may have grossly different
As I said in the room, my interpretation of what we agreed on was that 
we'd have one stats object for each side of the connection, with 
appropriate identifiers/pointers/references so that we can find both ends.

We don't have synchronized stats from the 2 ends (given that we have no 
global clock, and given the somewhat-randomized sending times for RTCP 
stats), so the synchronization problem is hard anyway.

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:30:55 -0500

We haven't seen a concrete proposal, so until we do, this is hard to resolve.

On 8 November 2012 11:24, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
> As I said in the room, my interpretation of what we agreed on was that we'd
> have one stats object for each side of the connection, with appropriate
> identifiers/pointers/references so that we can find both ends.
>