Re: Update of RTCRtpSender "doohickey" proposal

On 28 April 2014 23:11, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> The issue could still exist if you do addTrack(T, S) and then later
> S.removeStream(T). We might prefer taking the stream directly for
> syntactical reasons, but I don't think it avoids the core issue.

That's fine; the stream configuration on the receiving end always lags
the configuration at the sending end.  I'm just not convinced that we
need a way to specify identifiers in this way, Harald's speculation on
rehydration notwithstanding.

Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 16:49:10 UTC