- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 19:26:06 -0800
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABcZeBNSELCck+8P-x5ap3nJ4mvQzT-tWV2m+xduJwrMHTQM4w@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote: > On 03/06/2015 01:07 AM, Justin Uberti wrote: > > The unearthing of various things like this (e.g. onnegotiationneeded) make > me think we ought to have some sort of bug bash where we just go through > and fix all the places in the spec where text no longer matches reality. > > > Which reality .....? > > We have places where Firefox doesn't match Chrome doesn't match the spec. > At least 2 of the 3 are wrong, but which 2? > I'm sure that's true, but I'd love to get a list of these so we can bash them out. Do you have any to contribute? I'm all in favour of bashing bugs. Virtual interims anyone? > > As for "rejecting a track" being different from closing a track, my > conclusion has always been that there is no such thing; nobody's been able > to explain what they mean by it in a way that makes sense. > > I think we have agreement that returning a zero on the port number, or > putting "a=recvonly", in a track's m-line in SDP can be considered > "rejecting" an incoming track. > > I think we have agreement that calling track.stop() on an incoming track > causes the next createOffer or createAnswer to put zero in that port number > or putting "a=recvonly" in for that m-line. > Yes, this would be my expectation. > (Those agreements need to be documented in JSEP, btw - they're out of > scope for the WebRTC spec, given our current division of labor.) > https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/112 -Ekr > So I'm pretty sure we don't have any agreement that there's a documented > need for any means of rejecting a track apart from "track.stop()" - there's > no observable difference between rejecting a track and stopping a track, > so we shouldn't try to create one. > > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On 5 March 2015 at 07:01, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com> wrote: >> > How does one reject? I've heard talk about calling track.stop() on the >> > remote track but couldn't find that in the spec. >> >> This is based on a proposal that Adam floated something like 2 years >> ago. It got pretty good feedback, and most of the discussion over >> that period has sort of assumed that was the way things were. Like >> this issue however, no effort has been put in to actually change the >> spec. >> > > > > -- > Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark. > >
Received on Saturday, 7 March 2015 03:27:14 UTC