Re: Restarting ICE

On 04/04/2013 01:23 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> Nitpick: I propose it be called "IceRestart", for consistency with the 
> existing "IceTransports".

Works for me. It's also consistent with the pattern that constraints are 
nouns, not verbs.

> On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 2:20 AM, Harald Alvestrand 
> < <>> wrote:
>     Hello folks,
>     speaking as contributor:
>     I believe we now have all the pieces we need to restart ICE
>     properly, except for one little detail. Can we get this in, and
>     close the book on ICE restart?
>     What's in:
>     - under setLocalDescription: "If a local description contains a
>     different set of ICE credentials, then the ICE Agent must trigger
>     an ICE restart." .... " If the local description was set with
>     content that caused an ICE restart, then setconnection'sice
>     gathering state
>     <>to|gathering|."
>     - in the description of the RTCIceConnectionState Enum: "(any
>     state, ICE restart occurs): new"
>     The only remaining challenge is to get a local description with a
>     different set of ICE credentials.
>     Since SDP mangling is just so last year, I suggest adding a
>     constraint to the list in section 13.1 "Constraints":
>     RestartIce - this is an enum type constraint that can take the
>     values "true" and "false". The default is a non-mandatory "false".
>     When the value of the constraint is mandatory "true", the
>     generated description will have ICE credentials that are different
>     from the current credentials (as visible in the localDescription
>     attribute's SDP). Applying the generated description will restart ICE.
>     When the value of the constraint is mandatory "false", and the
>     localDescription attribute has valid ICE credentials, the
>     generated description will have the same ICE credentials as the
>     current value from the LocalDescription attribute.
>     When the constraint is optional, the implementation may choose to
>     generate new credentials or not based on other criteria.
>     If this is non-controversial, can we "just add it"?
>     If it is controversial - what's the controversy?
>              Harald

Received on Thursday, 4 April 2013 05:14:44 UTC