- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 18:36:49 -0700
- 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