Re: [rtcweb] A problem with both A and B

I'm confused.  The "no plan" plan still requires signaling, it's just not
O/A.  So what are you saving?

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>wrote:

> It is important. In fact, I would argue it is critical for congestion
> control (e.g. removal of simulcast or layered streams by the sender should
> not require an O/A exchange).
>
> "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com> wrote:
>
> > From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
> >
> > Both plan A and B currently describe semantics that would require O/A
> > exchanges every time a source is added or removed from a session.
> > [...]
> > Does any of this make any sense?
>
> My understanding (and I'm not tracking everything carefully) is that
> this is a bad situation.  I've been accumulating desiderata, and one
> that has been on the list for a long time is:
>
>    DES F11  It must be possible to add and remove one way video flows
>       within the bundle without requiring an additional offer/answer
>       cycle.
>
> Do people think that this is not important?
>
> Dale
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>