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

Re: Do we need two ways of identifying m-lines?

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2012 08:08:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNgbeBOU53QYrPnPnt9TRqM3TzGqDuyCJsFgA-oKo7w9Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>
Cc: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
<fluffy@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2012, at 10:39 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
>>> I also think the m= index strategy has several shortcomings, so using "mid"
>>> when available allows us to avoid chaining ourselves to m= index.
>>
>> In that case, I propose that the spec at minimum require that only either
>> mid or index be present. That way there's no room for disagreement
>> about the semantics.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Hmm, given that browser does not know when creating a candidate if the candidate is being used by Jingle, SIP or something else, that seems a bit problematic.
>
> Perhaps we should say when a candidate is generated by the browser, it will have both mid and index. When the browser consumes a candidate, if both are present and they do not indicate the same thing, then an error is reported since clearly something is borked in this case. The browser needs to be able to receive candidates that only have only mid or only index.

I can live with that.

At minimum the spec must require that they match... I could live with
it being undefined
to have them not match.

-Ekr
Received on Monday, 3 September 2012 15:10:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 3 September 2012 15:10:07 GMT