W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-orca@w3.org > February 2014

Re: ICE state diagram question

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:46:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-3DQn9se95MqLQysVJyghBfmQQkDX9mtkSPWmV3t=G+Gw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
I was under the impression that the omission of 'failed' was accidental. I
don't see any reason why it wouldn't make sense for ORTC.


On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Bernard Aboba
<Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>wrote:

>  In the ORTC editor’s draft (see
> http://ortc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ortc.html), the “failed” state
> is not an enumerated state in RTCIceTransportState (Section 3.6), which is
> different from WebRTC 1.0’s RTCIceconnectionState (Section 4.4.3).
>
>
>
> Is the assumption that the resulting (non-normative) ICE state machine
> diagram in ORTC would look like the one in WebRTC 1.0 (see below), with the
> removal of the failed state and associated transitions?
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/images/icestates.svg
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Monday, 10 February 2014 21:46:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:39:24 UTC