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

RE: OfferToReceive in CreateAnswer

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>
Message-ID: <9F33F40F6F2CD847824537F3C4E37DDF013197BA@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:30 UTC