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

Re: ICE in MS Proposal

From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:30:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWknWoeocZpQgNEEA6UZJ3J43w8Ur3DwHNEAa4xXLFhKA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 30 August 2012 10:37, Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com> wrote:
> 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?

I assume that you refer to priority.  The other items don't need to
come from the browser.  Foundation, component ID and candidate type
are known to the application.

Priority was omitted for a number of reasons.  Mainly, this was an
efficiency choice.  ICE operates well enough without it.  That said,
it is relatively trivial to add if it turns out that additional
sorting guidance is found to be useful.

Starting with a minimally functional set of features is generally a good policy.
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2012 18:31:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 30 August 2012 18:31:16 GMT