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

Re: Specify the negotiationneeded event

From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2015 09:17:53 +0800
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Stefan HÃ¥kansson <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <819640DF-546A-4889-BEBB-AB3651472955@cisco.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>

> On Feb 18, 2015, at 8:46 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 18 February 2015 at 05:34, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> >> Can't we spec this in a way that allows implementations capable of
> >> detecting that a potential onNN will be cancelled before signaling state
> >> becomes stable to suppress that onNN?
> >
> >
> > I am sure that we could, but I think we need to consider whether there is
> > any real-world benefit. The actions mentioned in this thread (e.g. adding a
> > track and then removing it immediately) seem like academic cases.
> 
> Yes, I wouldn't bother with that.  What concerns me more is what Roman
> pointed out: some applications rely on getting multiple events
> (obviously they aren't using Firefox...), and even as described, the
> event will fire less than they might previously have relied on.
> 
> I'm not super-concerned about that.  Applications that blindly
> renegotiate based on the event aren't going to work particularly well
> anyway.  Justin's proposed formulation does address that by ensuring
> that dirty (what I think we should call negotiationNeeded) is only
> cleared if the session description completely covers the requested set
> of channels/tracks.
> 
> Agree with this, as well as your suggested naming. 
> 

+1
Received on Wednesday, 18 February 2015 01:18:25 UTC

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