Which is consistent with most timestamps that we've defined for the last several years and ensures monotonically incrementing etc, so it's always possible to do "delta fooStat / delta timestamp".
But the timestamp definition in webrtc-pc is really old and it says:
The timestamp, of type DOMHighResTimeStamp, associated with this object. The time is relative to the UNIX epoch (Jan 1, 1970, UTC).
It doesn't really say but this sounds like a wall clock that is not necessarily always monotonically incrementing. I think this is a mistake and it should say Performance here as well to align with all other timestamps, otherwise there will be edge cases where things break.
We noticed a bug relating to wall clock vs performance where it would diverge if the laptop went to sleep and then the page resumed...
In webrtc-stats it says:
Which is consistent with most timestamps that we've defined for the last several years and ensures monotonically incrementing etc, so it's always possible to do "delta fooStat / delta timestamp".
But the timestamp definition in webrtc-pc is really old and it says:
It doesn't really say but this sounds like a wall clock that is not necessarily always monotonically incrementing. I think this is a mistake and it should say Performance here as well to align with all other timestamps, otherwise there will be edge cases where things break.
We noticed a bug relating to wall clock vs performance where it would diverge if the laptop went to sleep and then the page resumed...