W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2016

Re: Decisions reached at the Aug 23 virtual interim

From: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 19:30:34 +0000
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
CC: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <04BAB7C8-B0C2-4DB7-975F-DF00AF7A581E@microsoft.com>
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.


[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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:49 UTC