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 08:49:32 -0400
Message-ID: <5569B1DC.6070104@mozilla.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
CC: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 5/30/15 2:01 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> I don't consider this a realistic test.  You're basically assuming 
> that signalling RTT is near-0.  I think you'd have to retry with a 
> realistic signalling RTT.

I agree, though it's much faster than a visit through a (potentially 
busy) server, which I think we've been assuming.

I've updated the fiddle with a |additionalSignalingDelayMs| you can set.

By setting it unrealistically high, I notice the video stops half-way 
through re-negotiation. Aren't we fixing that with simultaneous support 
for current and pending local descriptions?

> ​ Andif you can still see flicker with near-0 RTT,
> ​I think it's a failure.

If the gamut is "we [now] don't really need replaceTrack in 1.0" and 
"it's a failure" at the same time, then maybe it's just right? ;)

>     I'm also wondering why we don't add
>     |pc||.turnOnAutoRenegotiation();| to do renegotiation over a
>     data-channel automatically with zero JS involvement.
> ​
> ​
> ​A library can already do that.

Yes, though AFAIK nobody has. A quick-flag would advertise this awesome 

.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Saturday, 30 May 2015 12:50:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:07 UTC