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

Re: Summary of replace track status

From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 20:28:05 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1447FA0C20ED5147A1AA0EF02890A64B1D243A04@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
On 29/05/15 18:17, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 29 May 2015 at 05:55, Stefan Håkansson LK
> <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> I think you are right, and it also seems (based on feedback from others)
>> that replaceTrack should work even if a renegotiation is required.
>
> That's not what I got from Cullen's comment.  His point was that
> replacing should work from any state.  Your statement here leads me to
> infer that replaceTrack can cause renegotiation.  That's what
> addTrack/removeTrack are for.

I did not get that from Cullen's comment either. I got that from 
Harald's [1], Ekr's [2] and Jan-Ivar's [3] (but I'm not sure I interpret 
this one correct) comments (it is also how Jan-Ivar's PR [4] is designed 
if IIUC).

OTOH, Peter [5] and Jan-Ivar in another message [6] said that 
replaceTrack should never lead to renegotiation (but instead fail), so 
it is not really clear what is the preferred model.

[1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015May/0144.html
[2] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015May/0140.html
[3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015May/0148.html
[4] https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/195

[5] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015May/0123.html
[6] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2015May/0136.html
>
Received on Friday, 29 May 2015 20:28:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:44 UTC