- From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 19:28:57 -0800
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABcZeBPns6J7rNVpMUL1_7xPBg1Lns4Jz8+xkKqRuo=N9k7EWg@mail.gmail.com>
Should have read Justin's mail before I wrote. I'm not sure that the .stop() part is entirely clear, but I agree the rest is. I'll leave the issue open pending reexamining the spec and discussing with Justin. -Ekr On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > 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 03:30:06 UTC