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

Re: Spec question: precise meaning of PeerState and IceState

From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:58:20 +0200
Message-ID: <4FE1ACCC.4060102@ericsson.com>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 06/19/2012 08:54 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
> On 6/15/2012 5:33 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>> Reviewing the latest draft, the meanings of some of the values of
>> PeerState and IceState were unclear. In addition, there was no IceState
>> to indicate a liveness check failure.
>> The following is a proposal to provide clear state information from both
>> PeerState and IceState as well as to notify the application of liveness
>> check failures.
>> If you can't see the state diagrams below, you can view them at
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/13TYiNSEmFkB7IeNLEJFxI0xMNk8q_LhXE_hbvFbXRTU/edit#.
> This all seems reasonable to me.

My knowledge barely covers the "PeerState" part, but that looks 
reasonable at first sight.

A question: introducing these states also opens for error handling. Say 
you're in state "received-pranswer", if the app does "setLocal(offer)" 
this would be an illegal state transition. Is this something we should add?

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 10:58:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:28 UTC