- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 06:36:00 +0200
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 05/06/2014 04:05 PM, bugzilla@jessica.w3.org wrote: > https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=25579 > > Bug ID: 25579 > Summary: State transitions are missing in RTCPeerConnections > state transition diagram. > Product: WebRTC Working Group > Version: unspecified > Hardware: All > OS: All > Status: NEW > Severity: normal > Priority: P2 > Component: WebRTC API > Assignee: public-webrtc@w3.org > Reporter: kiran.guduru@samsung.com > CC: public-webrtc@w3.org > > Created attachment 1472 > --> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/attachment.cgi?id=1472&action=edit > The attachment gives the updated state transition diagram for > RTCPeerConnection. > > RTCPeerConnection's state transition diagram, specified in spec [1], is missing > to indicate following state transitions state transitions. > > 1. have-remote-pranswer to have-local-offer > > 2. Have-local-pranswer to have-remtoe-offer Those two transitions are intended to be impossible. If you want to go from have-pranswer to have-offer, you need to go via the idle state. > > The same is applicable for statemachine defined in section 3.2 of JSEP draft > [2]. > > This state transitions are MUST to support section 5 of RFC 3262 [3] prack > case. > > "If the UAC receives a reliable provisional response with an answer, it MAY > generate an additional offer in the PRACK." You can achieve the effect by re-applying the last PRANSWER transition as an ANSWER. People who understand PRACK can comment further. > > Please find the attachment for the proposed state transition diagram, which > includes these state. > > [1] http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#state-definitions > > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-06#page-7 > > [3] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3262.txt > -- Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 05:27:23 UTC