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

Re: PRs for either PC.createRtpSender or PC.addTrack(..., RtpSenderInit, ...)

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:36:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXpaZMMBSrAPiFdnCjthEEBbLMxvpyOCutD+WkPuQ3aPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Cc: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 25 August 2015 at 17:52, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> Having reviewed both PRs, I agree with Adam and Peter. createRtpSender is
> simple and intuitive.


That sounds reasonable to me.  I don't think that #271 has enough
detail (it need to specify that the .track property of the sender is
null.  It also need to describe the consequences for session
negotiation: namely that a "default" profile for the specified kind
will be used.

Also, I assume that we aren't required to make any sorts of promises
about hardware codecs; in other words, that browsers will not include
hardware codecs in any generated session description unless hardware
codecs are the only possible option.  Hmm, the more I think about
this, the more that I think that we need to be careful to work out
what the right approach is - we could leave this up to implementer
discretion, but that would be sloppy.
Received on Wednesday, 26 August 2015 01:37:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:45 UTC