- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 16:41:11 -0700
- To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
- Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 14 May 2013 11:59, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: > The problem with the current spec is that the state transitions are all > worded in a way that assumes success. Look at Jan-Ivar's example: > > have-local-offer A local description, of type "offer", has been supplied. > > > That's an extremely naïve way of describing it, since it presumes that the > SDP is valid and that the PeerConnection signaling state machine was in a > state for which supplying local offer made sense. (Alternately, on its face, > it means that the state changes to "have-local-offer" regardless of whether > the offer was valid or whether it made any sense to supply it). So, when I > said "and successful," what I really meant was that it would be far clearer > to say something like: > > have-local-offer A local description, of type "offer", has been > successfully applied. > The "supplied" makes some (bad) assumptions about what/who is supplying and what/who is receiving. It can't be application -> browser if the state transition is to make any sense. "successfully applied" is definitely a better choice of words. > Obviously, failures can make the state transition in other ways, but that's > not what I was referring to above.
Received on Tuesday, 14 May 2013 23:41:38 UTC