- From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 08:01:02 -0400
- 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