- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 09:58:49 +0000
- To: "webrtc-chairs@w3.org" <webrtc-chairs@w3.org>, "webrtc-editors@alvestrand.no" <webrtc-editors@alvestrand.no>
This is the meat of what I plan to send (note there is no decision on the first two items - I will move them to a separate section when sending). Please let me know what I got wrong: ================================================ webrtc-pc --------- Issue 979/PR 996: When is an RTCSctpTransport Created and Destroyed?: Something about being created at pr-answer - I did not record any decision apart from "Taylor will update PR" Issue 116/PR 990: Add an explicit stats selection algorithm: discussed, two things noted: J-I would prefer something recursive instead of a fixed list. Several preferred having sender/receiver as selcetor instead of track PR 988: Add RTCOfferOptions.reofferOptions: DECISION: We will not merge this one. JSEP expected to provide what is needed. Issue 709: offerToReceiveAudio/offerToReceiveVideo remain in implementations: DECISION to add this back into the spec (in the compatibility section). Note that only the binary/boolean version will be added back in (indicating that you are offering to receive one track) Issue 961: Effect of a BYE on RTCRtpReceiver.track: Bernard's proposed resolution was generally liked, but there are some corner cases to sort. DECISION: to go in the direction of Bernard's proposed resolution. Issue 962: Event when a transceiver is stopped via remote action: Bernard's proposed solution was like, DECISION to add to spec. Issue 714/PR 1000: STUN/TURN auth credential management (OAuth): DECISION: got with the "hybrid" API, and make username optional. mediacapture-main ----------------- Issue 404: Revive createObjectURL?: The idea of reviving was disliked. DECISION: do not revive. (Implementors promised to add deprecation warnings and similar, and demo code etc. will be gone through to change to .srcObject.) Issue 425: Do we update legacy methods to keep up with the spec?: DECISION: do nothing (for the time being at least). Issue 426: Move “advanced” out of constrainable pattern: DECISION: defer this discussion until there is some spec that intend to use constrainable pattern and does not like to implement advanced. ========================================================= Br, Stefan
Received on Friday, 27 January 2017 09:59:37 UTC