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 11:15:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-022ya37s-8-jUNUDujZBH9+k8L6gNiWyQkQDQuvvbarQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Venkatesan, Ganesh" <ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com>
Cc: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Ganesh,

Not sure I follow you.

Active goes to "sent offer" upon a setLocalDescription call with a
SessionDescription of type "offer". "sent offer" goes back to "active",
upon a setRemoteDescription call with a SessionDescription of type "answer.

Note though that PeerState indicates signaling states, not the ICE states
that were the original topic of this email thread.


On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Venkatesan, Ganesh <
ganesh.venkatesan@intel.com> wrote:

>  Hello Justin:****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for this work.****
>
> ** **
>
> I am a little confused about transitions from “Active” to “Sent Offer” and
> “Received Offer” States? Could you help me understand the rationale behind
> these states? Also, under what conditions would the transition from
> “Received Offer” to “Active” and “Sent Offer” to “Active” occur?****
>
> ** **
>
> Based on what I understand, the transitions identified above muse be
> removed from the state diagram.****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers --****
>
> ganesh****
>
>  ****
>
> *From:* Jim Barnett [mailto:Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, September 10, 2012 7:05 AM
> *To:* Justin Uberti; Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
> *Cc:* public-webrtc@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Phone call about ICE states****
>
> ** **
>
> 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 18:16:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 10 September 2012 18:16:43 GMT