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

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

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 19:53:54 +0200
Message-ID: <52165032.6040902@alvestrand.no>
To: public-media-capture@w3.org
On 08/22/2013 01:13 PM, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK wrote:
> On 2013-08-22 12:19, Tommy Widenflycht wrote:
>> I thought the idea was that the source of the tracks on the receiving
>> side was their respective local PeerConnection, not the original source
>> on the sending side.
> This is my understanding as well. But it would keep the Id, right?
>
>> This has far-fetching consequences I think.
> I'm not sure I follow. What I intended to say I agree to is that tracks 
> on the receiving side of a PC should be possible to play out in sync if 
> their origin is the same (coming from the same physical unit, e.g. a 
> computer with one microphone and one camera) regardless of if they are 
> sent in one MediaStream or two different MS's, and that using the same 
> RTP CNAME is needed to accomplish this.
>
>> Consider adding a bit of echo and/or some sound effects on the
>> MediaStream between the microphone and the PC using WebAudio. Should the
>> original source identifier still be preserved? A PC processes the media
>> similarly by doing error concealment in different forms...
> This is a good point. We've not discussed the source identifier of a 
> (audio) track originating from an AudioContext. But to me it seems 
> obvious it can't be the same source identifier as the one of the 
> microphone creating the original track.
To my mind, it wouldn't be totally illogical to have the source
identifier contain the CNAME.
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2013 17:54:23 UTC

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