- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 13:20:37 +0200
- To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 09/23/2015 11:55 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: > On 23/09/15 11:47, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote: >> Reading back on this discussion I note: >> >> - discussion on why RTCIceCandidate is not a dictionary, but it seems to >> become one with [1] >> - arguments that if we have "fail on malformed" when constructing we >> should have it on addIceCandidate as well - but I don't think we have a >> check when constructing > PS One argument for changing as [2] proposes is IMO consistency. > setLocal/Remote has no "fail on malformed" step, why should addIceCandidate? If setLocal/Remote don't fail on malformed (by erroring out the promise or calling the error callback), we have a real problem on our hands. You can't even get to the step of checking if the proposed description is possible to set without it being well-formed. Do we need a new bug for this?
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 11:21:08 UTC