W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2015

Re: ReplaceTrack and track.id (Re: ReplaceTrack - need to evaluate alternatives)

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 09:19:31 +0000
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1D1DC0A2@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 16/04/15 11:13, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 04/16/2015 12:19 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>> Well it's already there via SDP munging :).
>>
>> And te question isn't whether to allow the JS to choose the MID.  It's
>> whether to have two IDs/labels (MID + something else), or just one
>> (MID).  If one will work, I prefer one.
>
> The two concepts have different lifetimes; a track can be created before
> a PeerConnection.
>
> I like to support the model of "you are sending a track over a
> PeerConnection; it appears the same on the other side" as much as
> possible. Having an ID on the track is part of that model.

To me, it would be sufficient to coordinate over RTPSender/Receivers, 
"the track coming out of receiver with Id X represents ...".

>
>  From my perspective, MID is part of the adaptations we do in order to
> make SDP work for us.
> Having rules from SDP spill over into the track model seems like
> tail-wags-dog to me.

I agree 100%, we should have as little SDP spill over into tracks (or 
sender/receivers) as possible.

>
>
Received on Thursday, 16 April 2015 09:19:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:43 UTC