-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 115
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
receiver.getParameters().codecs is broken (regression) #2956
Comments
This turns out to be regression from #2935. Prior to that it said this in sLD: ...and this in create an RTCRtpTransceiver: I.e. it starts out empty and is then populated based on negotiation (which may be non-empty or empty). But with #2935 this got replaced with this in sLD: I.e. it starts out being entirely implementation-defined whether it is empty or includes the full set or something in between , and then "enabled" is only ever set to true, never false. This means it cannot possibly represent the (subset of) codecs that were negotiated, which seems broken. |
@alvestrand what are next steps? Do we back out #2935 for now, or do you have a PR in the hopper? From #2925 (comment):
We probably need new internal slots for this instead, e.g. transceiver.[[SendCodecCapabilities]] and [[ReceiveCodecCapabilities]] (defaulting to the implementation list), as appropriating [[SendCodecs]] or [[ReceiveCodecs]] for this (defaulting to empty) seems to interfere with their existing purpose of reflecting what's been negotiated (#2967). |
Also, was part of the intent here to repurpose If so, do we need non-static versions of |
May look as if we had a name collision between previous [[SendCodecs]] at the PC level and [[SendCodecs]] at the sender/receiver level, and I did not detect it when moving [[SendCodecs]] (which I thought unique) to the sender/receiver level. |
receiver.getParameters has this non-normative note:
It suggests that post sRD(answer),
receiver.getParameters().codecs
is updated to only reflect what's been negotiated.But I can't find any normative steps to support this note:
Is the note wrong or are we missing some normative steps? What was the intent?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: