W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > August 2012

RE: ICE in MS Proposal

From: Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 17:37:31 +0000
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B60F8F444AAC9C49A9EF0D12D05E0942216C0A59@szxeml535-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Hi Martin,

I find MS proposal interesting as I study it more. But I do have this follow-up question. 

I didn’t find a JS structure in the API to represent ICE candidates that contains information in SDP a=candidate lines, as RealtimePort doesn't contain attributes like candidate type and priority. 
Without a predefined structure like RealtimeMediaDescription for media, how would a browser convey complete information about its ICE candidates to its peer?


-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Thomson [mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 5:28 PM
To: Li Li
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
Subject: Re: ICE in MS Proposal

On 29 August 2012 12:03, Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> Thanks for your reply. Just wanted to be sure that your proposal mandates an ICE state machine inside the browser that is shared by different local RealtimePort objects.
> For example, if a JS pairs up the local and remote ports in random, the ICE machine would reorder the pairs by their pair priorities and check them accordingly.

The proposal does not include an ICE state machine.  Though this is
not explicit (it does not need to be), checks are issued in the order
in which they are requested.  The application chooses the check order.
 If that order happens to be random, then that is what you get.

Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 17:39:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:29 UTC