- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 09:00:50 -0700
- To: Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 3 April 2013 06:10, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote: > On 4/3/13 2:00 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: >> But I think we should rethink this whole OfferToReceiveVideo thing. >> Say you wanted to receive 2 video stream but not offer any? How would >> one do that. I think the best way would be to create some tracks >> attached to a video element and add them to the PeerConnection. Or >> something along theses lines. > > > I'm not sure we need that kind of functionality. The current APIs are for > the sender; so the sending app decides (what it adds to PeerConnection). > > If a certain application would like the receiver to decide, it could use app > internal signaling (the receiving app tells the sending app what it wants, > and the sending app adds that to the PeerConnection). I think that Suhas had it right, but Cullen confused the issue. When I generate an offer, unless that offer contains m= lines (*) that cover the video I am prepared to receive, then I wont be able to receive it unless there is a renegotiation. That's suboptimal. We could decide to force this upon users, but I think you may experience some conflict if you try. Cullen's idea of creating MediaStreams isn't going to work at all. At least not without a fairly significant change to MediaStream. (*) Plan A or B are different here, but that isn't material to the argument.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2013 16:01:21 UTC