Re: Use of .iceState and .sdpState

On 02/08/2012 10:41 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That question may become irrelevant if we adapt a JSEP-based proposal,
> but I'm curious as to why the current PeerConnection interface exposes
> iceState and sdpState — it's not obvious to me what use cases makes it
> useful for the application to know state of the SDP and ICE agents to
> that level (in the current approach).
>
> I've found discussions on why the ICE agent and the SDP agent need to be
> considered separately:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Sep/0081.html
>
> But it's not clear to me that this requires exposing these agents on the
> PeerConnection API at all; I've looked at the requirements document, but
> I haven't found any requirements that would lead to exposing these.

I basically agree with everything you say. We really need to work out 
the states and how much should be exposed regardless of how the API 
looks like.

/Adam

Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 13:12:12 UTC