W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Update of RTCRtpSender "doohickey" proposal

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 07:15:49 +0200
Message-ID: <53608705.10601@ericsson.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2014-04-30 07:06, Justin Uberti wrote:
>     3) I like the removal of the "removetrack" event, instead having the
>     track on the remote side going to ended state. I guess the associated
>     RTCRtpReceiver would also go to a terminated state. We need some text
>     explaining what will happen if the same track is again added on the
>     sender side.
> This is an interesting point, but I think the simplest thing is just to
> create a new, non-dead track on the remote side with the same ID.

For clarification. It's the counter-part of the "removestream" event (on 
RTCPeerConnection) that this proposal is leaving out right? We still 
have the "removetrack" event on MediaStream (which can be used in other 
cases than RTCPeerConnection)?

Received on Wednesday, 30 April 2014 05:16:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:17:55 UTC