W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Use of .iceState and .sdpState

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 14:01:49 +0100
Message-ID: <4F32723D.9050306@ericsson.com>
To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 02/08/2012 10:41 AM, Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> That question may become irrelevant if we adapt a JSEP-based proposal,
> but I'm curious as to why the current PeerConnection interface exposes
> iceState and sdpState — it's not obvious to me what use cases makes it
> useful for the application to know state of the SDP and ICE agents to
> that level (in the current approach).
>
> I've found discussions on why the ICE agent and the SDP agent need to be
> considered separately:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webrtc/2011Sep/0081.html
>
> But it's not clear to me that this requires exposing these agents on the
> PeerConnection API at all; I've looked at the requirements document, but
> I haven't found any requirements that would lead to exposing these.

I basically agree with everything you say. We really need to work out 
the states and how much should be exposed regardless of how the API 
looks like.

/Adam
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 13:12:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:27 UTC