- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 14:01:16 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- CC: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2013-05-15 01:41, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 14 May 2013 11:59, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: >> The problem with the current spec is that the state transitions are all >> worded in a way that assumes success. Look at Jan-Ivar's example: >> >> have-local-offer A local description, of type "offer", has been supplied. >> >> >> That's an extremely naïve way of describing it, since it presumes that the >> SDP is valid and that the PeerConnection signaling state machine was in a >> state for which supplying local offer made sense. (Alternately, on its face, >> it means that the state changes to "have-local-offer" regardless of whether >> the offer was valid or whether it made any sense to supply it). So, when I >> said "and successful," what I really meant was that it would be far clearer >> to say something like: >> >> have-local-offer A local description, of type "offer", has been >> successfully applied. >> > > The "supplied" makes some (bad) assumptions about what/who is > supplying and what/who is receiving. It can't be application -> > browser if the state transition is to make any sense. "successfully > applied" is definitely a better choice of words. I think it makes sense to update this text as described above. Regarding when the state change occurs and the event is dispatched, see [1]. /Adam [1] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#set-description-model
Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 12:01:42 UTC