Re: Format of candidate-attribute string

I don't see a lot of value in making a candidate object given that
we have decided not to break out other parameters for (e.g. SDP)
[yes, yes, I know comment 22].

WRT to the right string representation, given that 5245 defines the
production without the a= and the \r\n and that they really are
part of SDP rather than ICE, my preference would be to do
without.

-Ekr


On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 14 January 2013 07:40, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> > when the ICE spec changes we need to track that
>
> That sounds like a feature to me.  There's something to be said for a
> container that holds extensions that conform to the ICE grammar, but
> if the IETF changes the rules, then it's probably not something
> trivial and backward compatible.
>
>