- From: henbos via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 08:21:54 +0000
- To: public-webrtc-logs@w3.org
If the unassociated stopped transceiver doesn't cause ONN to fire (do we have a WPT?), i.e. a pointless follow-up O/A is not an issue, then I agree there is little point to adding this special case logic. In the use case I described, where you create a sendonly transceiver but get a remote offer that creates a sendrecv transceiver so you use that instead and stop the first transceiver, this will get removed as soon as you apply the answer it sounds like, which means the transceiver isn't really lingering on until another O/A exchange in this case. Because you're already performing an O/A exchange. Now there is an edge case where you create and stop the transceiver before any offer is being made, but I cannot think of any real use case where you would do this. I'm happy to close this issue then. -- GitHub Notification of comment by henbos Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/issues/2576#issuecomment-697212454 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2020 08:21:55 UTC