- From: Stefan Hakansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:58:20 +0200
- 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