- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 05:22:20 +0200
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 06/01/2012 10:55 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> The specification explicitly states that the following snippet is
> guaranteed to succeed (S 4.1.11.2):
>
> pc.createOffer(function(offer) {
> pc.setLocalDescription("offer", offer);
> });
>
>
> Now consider the following snippet:
>
> pc.createOffer(function(offer) {
> setTimeout(function() {
> pc.setLocalDescription("offer", offer);
> }, 1000);
> });
>
> The spec suggests that this is not guaranteed to succeed, but is it
> reasonable for the application programmer to expect it to
> succeed? Phrased differently, would an implementation which refused
> any setLocalDescription() outside of the createOffer() callback
> even if no other conditions had changed be conformant?
I would regard it as conformant, but not likely to be popular.
Similarly, I would regard an implementation that always rejected this:
pc.createOffer(function(offer) {
offer.makeSomeReasonableTweakToTheSDP()
pc.setLocalDescription("offer", offer);
});
as conformant, but not likely to be popular.
I don't see how to easily define conformance (in "always" / MUST terms)
in a way substantially different from "before anything else executes"
and "without any changes to the SDP".
There may be ways to define what a "reasonable SDP change" and a
"reasonable expectation of later success" is - once we can write tests
for them, I'd like to investigate those.
Received on Monday, 4 June 2012 03:22:50 UTC