W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-capture@w3.org > August 2013

Re: RECAP: Conclusion: Cloning and sharing of MediaStreamTracks - worth it?

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 08:15:31 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: Tommy Widenflycht <tommyw@google.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-media-capture@w3.org" <public-media-capture@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1C37FFB1@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 2013-08-21 18:15, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 21 August 2013 06:21, Tommy Widenflycht <tommyw@google.com> wrote:
>> So a user wants to send the audio MST through PC1 (with relay) and the video
>> MST through PC2. How does this require a MST to belong to more that one MS?
> In order to send A on PC1 and V on PC2, you need to have separate
> MediaStream instances, one for each PC.  Maybe you could use the same
> MediaStream and synthetically reject certain m-lines from each PC, but
> that doesn't help the receiving end.
>> And how can there be any expectation that the audio and video are
>> synchronized on the receiving side?
> This has to be possible.  The two tracks have the same source, with
> the same clock, and they should have the same (RTCP) CNAME.
> Assembling the two tracks into a single MS at the receiver should
> result in the playback being synchronized.

I agree fully to this (and this is what I tried to express at the Boston 


Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 08:16:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:26:19 UTC