- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:19:31 +0000
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 16/04/15 11:13, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > On 04/16/2015 12:19 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote: >> Well it's already there via SDP munging :). >> >> And te question isn't whether to allow the JS to choose the MID. It's >> whether to have two IDs/labels (MID + something else), or just one >> (MID). If one will work, I prefer one. > > The two concepts have different lifetimes; a track can be created before > a PeerConnection. > > I like to support the model of "you are sending a track over a > PeerConnection; it appears the same on the other side" as much as > possible. Having an ID on the track is part of that model. To me, it would be sufficient to coordinate over RTPSender/Receivers, "the track coming out of receiver with Id X represents ...". > > From my perspective, MID is part of the adaptations we do in order to > make SDP work for us. > Having rules from SDP spill over into the track model seems like > tail-wags-dog to me. I agree 100%, we should have as little SDP spill over into tracks (or sender/receivers) as possible. > >
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 09:19:57 UTC