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

Re: Should pc.getRemoteStreams() include all remote tracks after pcsetRemoteDescription() ?

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 19:26:06 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNSELCck+8P-x5ap3nJ4mvQzT-tWV2m+xduJwrMHTQM4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>

>  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
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.)



> 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:04 UTC