W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2013

muting/hold (was Re: Cisco's position on the WebRTC API)

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:22:09 +1000
Message-ID: <CAHp8n2nUVqK0zAZyf7pO=7MMPcjA+VAaMKBtzNpkW0zv-_Dv9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: cowwoc <cowwoc@bbs.darktech.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Hi Eric,

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> I think you're conflating a number of features here:
> 1. Stop sending media to the other side. This needs to be done with
> some API call on the media stream to mute it. In Firefox, at least
> you do this by setting .enabled to false. I'm not sure if there
> is WG consensus that this is the right plan. Regardless, no
> signaling is required.
> 2. Stop playing the media from the other side. This is just done
> by muting the element the MS is playing into.
> 3. Tell the other side to stop sending media (often called "hold").
> It's not clear how one would do that. Note that this also plays into
> the question of how one rejects an incoming MST offer.

Good, let's get an API for each one of these! My particular focus was
on the last on, which needs SDP renegotation FAIK, but it seems at
least (1.) isn't specified either yet.

>> Do take my suggestion for a .mute() function on MediaStream as such a
>> concrete proposal.
> I think this is more complicated than you suggest, as indicated above. I
> agree
> something is needed.


About (1.) - is there any intention to add .enabled to MediaStream?

About (3.) How about a .hold() function on a PeerConnection with a
MediaStream as the parameter?

Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2013 02:22:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:50 UTC