- From: Hutton, Andrew <andrew.hutton@siemens-enterprise.com>
- Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:09:43 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 28 October 2012 14:29 Martin Thomson wrote: > On 28 October 2012 04:47, Hutton, Andrew wrote: > > The constraint to indicate that the application only wants to receive > > video surely applies to the answer as much as it applies to the offer > > the problem is that the name and the text in the draft implies to that > > it only relates to the offer. > > I think that the question is whether it should be possible using > constraints to reject incoming streams. That would provide the > symmetry that we are looking for here. > It seems to be more than just being able to reject incoming streams it is also about setting the direction so an incoming offer may indicate a=sendrecv but the application may decide to indicate it will accept the incoming stream but is not going to send any video at this time so might respond with a=recvonly. > > InboundAudio: true and InboundVideo: true as constraints would work, I > should think. They could apply to offers (in that they would trigger > the creation of an appropriate m= section. And in answers, they would > shape the characteristics of the response: a=sendonly or m=audio 0. > That's not perfectly symmetrical in the latter instance, you could > always create the streams and use a=inactive, but that seems a little > wasteful, especially if we aren't bundling. > > --Martin
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2012 16:10:13 UTC