- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:33:11 +0000
- To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 24/07/15 13:21, Peter Thatcher wrote: > > B > A, because an RtpSender without a track seems cleaner than a dummy > track. But I could live with A. > > D > C, because we don't have to add anything. I think we shouldn't add > RtpReceiver.active. > > 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 agree on all points. But there are some details that needs sorting, e.g. - Currently we have "ontrack" firing. It should not fire if an empty sender/receiver pair was created, would we need another event to inform the app at the receiving side? - So far we've said that 'replace track' should not change the track id at the remote side and that no SDP exchange would be needed (at least not in most cases - Jan-Ivar has the view SDP exchanges could result from replaceTrack, we need to sort this). How should that be dealt with here? If the purpose is to "warm" the connection, ideally we should not need any SDP exchange to get the media flowing, but in this case we have no initial track id. > > > Commence discussion :).
Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 09:49:03 UTC