- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:51:04 +0000 (UTC)
- To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2011 19:51:37 UTC
On Wed, 13 Jul 2011, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > > In the proposal there is a discussion on multiple connections per > PeerConnection object: "Using a single PeerConnection to handle multiple > incoming connections presents some unique challenges, but also has the > desirable property of being able to stream out a single set of > MediaStreams to multiple peers (which can also be changed mid-session). > " > > To me the most natural way would be to have one PeerConnection object > per peer. Then, if the same set of streams are sent to each peer, of > course there should be only one encoding, framing, packetization etc. > But this is an optimization that can be handled in the implementation, > and need not to be visible at the JS API level. I tend to agree. The only reason I would see to have PeerConnection have built-in knowledge of multiple peers is if ICE supported such a thing. However, I can't find anything in the relevant RFCs about 1:many processing in ICE agents. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 13 July 2011 19:51:37 UTC