On Aug 25, 2016, at 11:45 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com<mailto:adam@nostrum.com>> wrote: Is this a typo? I recall the conversation being about having a surface that allows a UA to indicate whether they can *receive* simulcast. I thought the tranceiver-based approach shown in <http://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/#simple-simulcast-example><https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fw3c.github.io%2fwebrtc-pc%2f%23simple-simulcast-example&data=01%7c01%7cBernard.Aboba%40microsoft.com%7c056df6e3269e47a635b108d3cd18074d%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=g0sBCk%2fTqLmYD5nDmKBrTJKEmQcWJ%2bjNk3xxGuqeUBc%3d> was still going to work. /a [BA] That is what I recall as well - and the decision was specifically about not adding APIs to enable the ability to receive simulcast to be indicated in an Offer. Passing an Offer to send simulcast to setRemoteDescription() is permitted, and is the subject of a PR (now merged).
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2016 19:31:10 UTC