- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:17:44 +0200
- To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 24 July 2015 at 13:18, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote: > B > A, because an RtpSender without a track seems cleaner than a dummy > track. But I could live with A. I think that if we intend to send nothing, then I agree. A dummy track that sends nothing is a little odd. > D > C, because we don't have to add anything. I think we shouldn't add > RtpReceiver.active. I'm not sure about this, but adding an API point is easier than removing one. > F > E, because we don't have to add anything. I think that even if we add > RtpReceiver.active, it should not cause an SDP renegotiation, just like > RtpSender.setParameters doesn't. I'm fine with that, if that was the decision for setParameters. I'm not sure about that decision though. It seems like we have tried hard to ensure that you could frob the various hoosits and rely on onnegotiationneeded to tell you when to send an offer out. Do you get onnnnnn firing if you replace a track?
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2015 14:18:11 UTC