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

Re: Update of RTCRtpSender "doohickey" proposal

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>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1CFDCBD4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
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 

Received on Friday, 2 May 2014 06:12:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:40 UTC