- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:11:41 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
Splitting up the thread....
On 08/07/2012 05:54 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> The second piece of state is with the ICE state machine. ICE state is
> currently very poorly defined. It is also unnecessary.
>
> I have a sketch of an API that does ICE on top of this API. This
> would be pure Javascript, but it could be shipped with browsers. This
> would reduce the complexity for application developers without
> removing any flexibility or transparency.
>
Martin, the last time the RTCWEB/WEBRTC people discussed whether ICE
should be in Javascript or in the browser machine, the consensus
recorded was, I believe, that we'd do ICE in the browser, and that we
wouldn't consider the question again until someone could demonstrate
(not just theorize) that an ICE machine written in Javascript was able
to satisfy the ICE timing constraints.
Has that demonstration been successful?
Harald
Received on Tuesday, 7 August 2012 19:12:00 UTC