Re: [rtcweb] Basic scenario 'impossible?' to achieve with the actual API

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 02 July 2013 21:16 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A31421F901A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:16:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6Sy5MDh1XTGr for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-f45.google.com (mail-qe0-f45.google.com [209.85.128.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7112621F8FDC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:16:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f45.google.com with SMTP id w7so2645429qeb.32 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=gth39vkm/4uDoyuuMww0kPgT258WGMtUKakVooSGuz8=; b=Seke+WQ2FfN5pJIs3XaBR2tiWgIPv7kJ4Lie72/23NVvQI/81EP29iQw8ovwA0LaZz TaLmv6t7tAmfUiXedYJgBcYXEirEFWkL/Q+3Cl43d2mvc7FA6D2lDu3MlFMVjoz5MipO g0LHTbDPl/AH8RVOn9N4BlDuWRDTW+LypAtbKiyediXs4kDABJSQmCxLWHCA4DvgTb85 yCsp0wglwkAfDjFFSCItfeRNuRnAvPQZQB9Sz2xuw6UMGZKYVVf0Bq+4x4SJhmj+VtFL Dl9QaPnW7vdeIXnYQRz2ooZXFpV9IgEu3d9L1ohh3X7mV0f5MM/fLdYbOkN5nZkEUbrO 6k2A==
X-Received: by 10.224.182.79 with SMTP id cb15mr42014235qab.48.1372799783839; Tue, 02 Jul 2013 14:16:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.49.72.132 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jul 2013 14:16:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130702200750.73d1e5b9@rainpc>
References: <CABw3bnOp1jY6-ziR-PFG4-fRTT5zQ5ebQkmp5PhzeS1ew=h98g@mail.gmail.com> <51D2FC3C.8090609@telecomitalia.it> <CALiegfkrbw7ouiEP726LMOkGJb3bmicU03svZ-3VMLH3Oxhtjw@mail.gmail.com> <57A15FAF9E58F841B2B1651FFE16D2810539DF@GENSJZMBX01.msg.int.genesyslab.com> <20130702200750.73d1e5b9@rainpc>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 23:16:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfk7c0Se=NPSoT+5SSaGVaq8oqpNx88DE7hScnkYYX-_eQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkq/ixzreeCVQ6qOHcXG0AP99phFwdLwqHV1gkvULILMKKCWZnmsvikKHpGmwg4DafAvMQ9
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Basic scenario 'impossible?' to achieve with the actual API
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2013 21:16:31 -0000

2013/7/2 Lorenzo Miniero <lorenzo@meetecho.com>om>:
> Anyway, I agree with you that the UA knows about that. In the case of Alice trying to add video and Bob rejecting it, there may be no callback as of now, but the JS application should already have a way to know the video has been rejected nevertheless. It might just look at the updated MediaStream instance: if nothing changed, video was rejected

That is *really* ugly, don't you think?


--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>