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

Re: Summary of replace track status

From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 08:01:02 -0400
Message-ID: <5569A67E.6020100@mozilla.com>
To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, 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>
On 5/30/15 1:29 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> On 30/05/15 06:51, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey wrote:
>> Still, there's no perceivable difference in the time it takes, which is
>> enough to convince me that in the corner-case where codecs differ, POLA
>> is split-second flicker, not failure.
> Nice test. Having tested (also being on the same LAN) I agree, there is
> no big difference. But I don't know what to conclude from that really, is it
>
> * we should allow replaceTrack to work even if a renegotiation is needed
> or
> * we don't really need replaceTrack in 1.0 - you can accomplish (almost)
> the same thing using add/removeTrack

So it's clear, the conclusion I drew was the first one, that "we should 
allow replaceTrack to work even if a renegotiation is needed"

Because

* Smooth is better
* split-second flicker in corner-cases is POLA and not bad enough to 
fail over.
* In most cases, data-channels are available (and under-used today)

Expert users not satisfied by this can play tricks with 
onnegotiationneeded, can't they?

.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2015 12:01:33 UTC

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