W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Control of stuff that is not offer/answer (Re: Update of "Sorting issues into categories")

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 14:51:21 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvKUA3zssFmUNRyqC0=8joq2wODPc-NUzP--Qy46sOzjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
I would agree with Stefan that a lot of this can be addressed by something
like constraints mechanism, but this would require defining of additional
constraints or ability to provide/modify constraints without adding or
removing MediaStreams or MediaStreamTracks. For instance if all I want to
change the target bitrate for the video codec, why would I want to do
anything else except change the target bitrate. I would not want to do a
complete O/A exchange. I would not want to add and remove MediaStream
either. Stefan's proposals are good but it is in no way a complete solution
and would require more discussion.
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:21 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:

> On 10/03/2012 07:40 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>> Once again, I have mentioned my concern for the shortcomings of the
>> current API in
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/**0102.htm<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0102.htm>
>> <http://lists.w3.org/**Archives/Public/public-webrtc/**2012Sep/0102.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0102.html>
>> >
>> It looks like some additional API surface is needed to address my
>> concerns ( http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/**
>> 0109.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0109.html>).
>> I am not sure why this is being ignored...
> Because you didn't reply to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/**
> Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/**0109.html<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2012Sep/0109.html>where Stefan suggested that the present work on applying and modifying
> constraints seems like a reasonable approach to follow with regard to the
> issues you raised?
> Seriously, when the chairs say that "we think this is being addressed by
> ongoing work", the ball is back in your court to say whether you think this
> is correct or not.
>                      Harald
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2012 18:51:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:34 UTC