- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 06:12:14 +0000
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- CC: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 29/04/14 18:50, Martin Thomson wrote: > 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. In principle we can have the situation that a track added to the PC is member of several MediaStreams on the sending side. Should the "stream" argument be a list (regardless of it is a list of MS objects or MS identifiers)? > >
Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 06:12:38 UTC