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

Re: API points for ICE/DTLS warmup

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2015 16:17:44 +0200
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXk8k2rjSUih-prU49iqsd=Tc7qSV9z6KYVOJDq-9Jknw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 24 July 2015 at 13:18, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> wrote:
> B > A, because an RtpSender without a track seems cleaner than a dummy
> track. But I could live with A.

I think that if we intend to send nothing, then I agree.  A dummy
track that sends nothing is a little odd.

> D > C, because we don't have to add anything.  I think we shouldn't add
> RtpReceiver.active.

I'm not sure about this, but adding an API point is easier than removing one.

> F > E, because we don't have to add anything.  I think that even if we add
> RtpReceiver.active, it should not cause an SDP renegotiation, just like
> RtpSender.setParameters doesn't.

I'm fine with that, if that was the decision for setParameters.

I'm not sure about that decision though.  It seems like we have tried
hard to ensure that you could frob the various hoosits and rely on
onnegotiationneeded to tell you when to send an offer out.  Do you get
onnnnnn firing if you replace a track?
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2015 14:18:11 UTC

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