Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
  1. Oct 26, 2020
  2. Oct 23, 2020
  3. Oct 22, 2020
  4. Oct 04, 2020
    • Nicolas Dufresne's avatar
      rtpbin: Remove the rtpjitterbuffer with the stream · 5888def8
      Nicolas Dufresne authored and Tim-Philipp Müller's avatar Tim-Philipp Müller committed
      Since !348, the jitterbuffer was only removed with the session. This restores
      the original behaviour and removes the jitterbuffer when the stream is
      removed. This avoid accumulating jitterbuffer objects into the bin when a
      session is reused.
      
      Part-of: <!765>
      5888def8
    • Nicolas Dufresne's avatar
      rtpbin: Cleanup dead code · e72bbb9d
      Nicolas Dufresne authored and Tim-Philipp Müller's avatar Tim-Philipp Müller committed
      The rtpjitterbuffer is now part of the session elements, we no longer need
      to do the ref_sink dance when signalling it. It is already owned by the bin
      when signalled. Also, the code that handles generic session elements already
      handle the ref_sink() calls since:
      
      03dc2295
      
      Part-of: <!765>
      e72bbb9d
    • Matthew Waters's avatar
      rtph26*depay: drop FU's without a corresponding start bit · 2bc25174
      Matthew Waters authored and Tim-Philipp Müller's avatar Tim-Philipp Müller committed
      If we have not received a FU with a start bit set, any subsequent FU
      data is not useful at all and would result in an invalid stream.
      
      This case is constructed from multiple requirements in
      RFC 3984 Section 5.8 and RFC 7798 Section 4.4.3.  Following are excerpts
      from RFC 3984 but RFC 7798 contains similar language.
      
      The FU in a single FU case is forbidden:
      
         A fragmented NAL unit MUST NOT be transmitted in one FU; i.e., the
         Start bit and End bit MUST NOT both be set to one in the same FU
         header.
      
      and dropping is possible:
      
         If a fragmentation unit is lost, the receiver SHOULD discard all
         following fragmentation units in transmission order corresponding to
         the same fragmented NAL unit.
      
      The jump in seqnum case is supported by this from the specification
      instead of implementing the forbidden_zero_bit mangling:
      
         If a fragmentation unit is lost, the receiver SHOULD discard all
         following fragmentation units in transmission order corresponding to
         the same fragmented NAL unit.
      
         A receiver in an endpoint or in a MANE MAY aggregate the first n-1
         fragments of a NAL unit to an (incomplete) NAL unit, even if fragment
         n of that NAL unit is not received.  In this case, the
         forbidden_zero_bit of the NAL unit MUST be set to one to indicate a
         syntax violation.
      
      Part-of: <!764>
      2bc25174
  5. Oct 03, 2020
  6. Oct 02, 2020
  7. Oct 01, 2020
  8. Sep 30, 2020
  9. Sep 08, 2020
  10. Sep 07, 2020
  11. Aug 31, 2020
  12. Aug 24, 2020
  13. Aug 20, 2020
  14. Aug 18, 2020
  15. Aug 13, 2020
  16. Aug 11, 2020
  17. Aug 10, 2020
  18. Aug 08, 2020
  19. Aug 07, 2020
  20. Aug 04, 2020
Loading