Re: ReplaceTrack and track.id (Re: ReplaceTrack - need to evaluate alternatives)

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 7:48 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:57 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
>> The two arguments (that I know of) against using mid by itself:
>> 1) addTrack followed by removeTrack followed by addTrack will result in
>> the same mid for the second track, due to the quirks of SDP. This means
>> that sometimes addTrack gives you a new mid, sometimes it won't. This is
>> unfortunate, although if we wanted to go down this path, we could
>> prohibit recycling m= sections without a corresponding mid change. IOW, you
>> could only recycle rejected m= sections, and so the example here would
>> result in two m= lines.
>>
>
> This is effectively the problem I was also expressing.  If one does
> addTrack + removeTrack + addTrack, can we use a different MID the second
> time without accumulating dead m-lines over time?  If we can, then there is
> no problem.  If we can't, then either JS cannot safely do
> addTrack+removeTrack repeatedly too many times (do to the accumulation) or
> we must have multiple RtpSenders with the same MID but at different times.
> I think I'd be OK with the accumulation of dead m-lines.  If an app really
> had an accumulation problem, they could get around it by doing one of:
>  using replaceTrack, munging SDP, or using the future 1.1 API.
>

This particular issue won't result in too many dead m-lines; we will still
be able to recycle m=lines that aren't in use by either side. We just won't
be able to recycle "half-dead" m-lines, which is probably OK.


>
>
>> 2) without a=msid, there is no way to detect a recyclable m= line
>> (currently we can look for a=msid to determine this).
>>
>> Specifically, if you have a remote description without a=msid in a m=
>> section, and you stop your local track for that m= section, you don't know
>> whether to set port 0 (i.e. dead m= section) or not in subsequent offers,
>> because you can't tell if the remote side is still using that m= section.
>>
>>
> ​So basically we just need a way to know "I'm a WebRTC endpoint; I know
> what to do if you remove/recycle an m-line"?  For that I would suggest two
> possible solutions:
>
> 1.  ​Have an a=removable line.  Do one thing and do it well (instead of
> having multiple meaning tied to a=msid).
>
> 2.  Don't remove/recycle m-lines.   Would it really be that bad if we
> didn't?  We don't right now, and no one has complained.  And, as I
> mentioned, JS could always overcome an accumulation problem by using
> replaceTrack, munging SDP, or using the future 1.1 API.
>

I think this will be a real problem for conferences, since the list could
grow without bound.

>
>
>
> All that said, as much as I prefer the idea of having only 1 ID (MID), I
> would probably be OK with an SDP attribute like a=RtpSenderLabel if that
> ends up being more simple due to the quirks of SDP.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, I see.  It's true that if we didn't allow JS to choose the value, it
>>> would be the same as now where the JS cannot choose the track ID.  So we
>>> wouldn't be losing anything compared to the status quo.
>>>
>>> But isn't the JS always able to set it anyway via SDP munging?
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Martin Thomson <
>>> martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 15 April 2015 at 15:19, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
>>>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, I am OK with just one and with that one being a=mid; I
>>>> was pushing back at your suggestion that we let the JS set it, that's
>>>> all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>