- From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) <fluffy@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 06:55:40 +0000
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- CC: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Jan 16, 2013, at 10:35 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > 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. > > WFM - seem to be the bast argument so far
Received on Thursday, 17 January 2013 06:56:29 UTC