Re: [rtcweb] Convey "label"

On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com> wrote:

> On 2011-09-09 14:58, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Olle E. Johansson <oej@edvina.net
>> <mailto:oej@edvina.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>    9 sep 2011 kl. 09:07 skrev Colin Perkins:
>>
>>     > On 9 Sep 2011, at 07:53, Olle E. Johansson wrote:
>>     >> 9 sep 2011 kl. 08:51 skrev Stefan Håkansson LK:
>>     >>> there was a discussion yesterday of how to convey the Id (aka
>>    "label") of a MediaStream object when it is sent over a
>>    PeerConnection. Presumable this info would be in the SDP offer (or
>>    whatever we end up using). There was a discussion on if CNAME could
>>    be used or if we need something new.
>>     >>>
>>     >>> You mentioned that it would be quite easy to add a new element
>>    or attribute if we would need that. Could you explain a bit more?
>>     >>
>>     >> Just a kind reminder that there are application specific fields
>>    that we can use in RTCP too...
>>     >
>>     >
>>     > I was actually thinking of a new RTCP SDES item type to convey
>>    the label.
>>     >
>>    Side note: I know we're not talking SIP, but it actually touches
>>    Hadriel's Session ID proposal too...
>>
>>
>> It's not clear to me that we need a MediaStream to have a label, or any
>> identifier other than CNAME, unless it's meant to be some sort of
>> "display name" for that particular stream. If there are other expected
>> usages of the label, I'd be interested to know what they are.
>>
> The main purpose of an identifier of MediaStream's I see is to be able to
> reference them after transport over a PeerConnection. If several
> MediaStreams are sent over a PC, you need to be able to reference them - all
> the receiving app gets is "addstream" events.
>
> Of course you could add them one by one in a determined order, but that
> would mean that set up takes longer than required.
>
> I'm not sure CNAME can fulfill this purpose in all cases or not.

Right, I agree the app needs to be able to say "this video feed is for user
A" and "this video feed is for user B", if for no other reason than to be
able to display a user identifier underneath the appropriate video feed.
However as mentioned previously I think that this implies that each feed
(i.e. track) requires an identifier, not necessarily the stream. So I
propose we add a unique label attribute for tracks, which is essentially a
handle; this handle allows clear identification of a track, and can be
passed around in application messaging if needed. We may also want to allow
a non-unique display name to be provided as well.

I see no harm in having MediaStream's label be the CNAME, as a portable
handle for MediaStreams, but I haven't yet heard a use case where one would
use this handle instead of the track handle.

>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>