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

Re: Phone call about ICE states

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:30:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1L+ci11COyH7grJNCVdiZ67MtExVmuMNzF98OsF3_Xhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Cc: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
That is a good question. I haven't tried to nail down the exact ordering of
the track callbacks yet, just the ones on PeerConnection, but let me take a
shot at this.

I think onaddstream would be fired as you describe, but we wouldn't fire a
track event in this case, as the tracks can be retrieved from
MediaStream.audioTracks/videoTracks (from the MediaStream provided in the
onaddstream callback). If some tracks were rejected by the recipient, their
state would transition to muted (I think) upon setLocal.


On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>wrote:

> Justin,****
>
> A question about the PeerConnection callbacks on the offering side.  The
> offering side would initially call SetLocal and move to state
> ‘sent-offer’.    At some point it gets a response, calls SetRemote and
> moves to ‘active’  (for simplicity I’m leaving out pranswer.)  The
> SetRemote should cause ‘onaddstream’ to fire, and since both sides have
> accepted the description,  addTrack should follow.  A) is that correct?  B)
> if there are multiple streams, does ‘onaddstream’ fire for all of them
> before any ‘addTrack’, or can the two be interleaved?****
>
> ** **
>
> Conversely, on the receiving side,  ‘onnaddstream’ would fire when the
> offer was received and SetRemote was called.  Would ‘addTrack’ then fire
> when the receiving side accepted the offer by calling SetLocal?  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks,****
>
> Jim ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Justin Uberti [mailto:juberti@google.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2012 2:26 AM
> *To:* Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> *Cc:* public-webrtc@w3.org
>
> *Subject:* Re: Phone call about ICE states****
>
> ** **
>
> I updated my IceState proposal (which corresponds to Option A, or the
> high-level part of Option C) based on the points raised at Thursday's
> discussions. Please take a look at the "IceState proposal" section in the
> attached document, and let me know what you think.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 7:55 AM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
> wrote:****
>
>
> Updated slides with Justin Option C added ..****
>
> ** **
>
Received on Monday, 10 September 2012 15:31:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 15:31:33 GMT