- From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 May 2014 23:36:25 -0700
- To: Alex Gouaillard <alex.gouaillard@temasys.com.sg>
- Cc: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1rfnbVhaEAE5dLDJJTe0A=3ztZdQFsEt_ewu0YMo=m8w@mail.gmail.com>
I don't think an event is supposed to be fired for "new". That is the initial state. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Alex Gouaillard < alex.gouaillard@temasys.com.sg> wrote: > The state is set initially but the corresponding event is not fired for > "new", and AFAIK never was. "Checking" was triggering an event. > The demo is manually fetching the state first, hiding the fact that no > event was ever fired. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 9 May, 2014, at 8:36 AM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> We'v >> >> >> On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 3:02 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> When calling createOffer/Answer in Firefox, the success callback >>> provides me with a SDP that already includes local ICE candidates, so >>> there is no onicecandidate event for those candidates (but just for >>> candidates discovered via STUN). >>> >> >> Actually, it's more complicated. Firefox will return whatever candidates >> are available at the time you call CreateOffer/CreateAnswer. After >> discussion at IETF we agreed that it would be better to have all >> candidates trickle, so we're planning to change this. >> >> >> Is this "valid" as per spec? >>> >> >> That's a more complicated philosophical question, since the specs are >> just drafts and this was kind of a point of vagueness/disagreement. >> >> As a practical matter, FF will do this for quite some time >> (and would continue to do so even if we changed the code today) so >> you have to live with it for a while. >> > > >> >> >> BTW: In Chrome the oniceconnectionstatechange fires 3 times per >>> PeerConnection with this data: >>> >>> iceConnectionState: "completed" >>> iceGatheringState: "complete" >>> >>> This is, there is no "new", "checking" or "connected" values for >>> iceConnectionState. >>> >>> >>> Again: how "valid" is this as per spec? >>> >> >> This sounds wrong. >> >> > Agree, and is surprising. I don't see that behavior at > http://googlechrome.github.io/webrtc/samples/web/content/peerconnection-states/ > . > > Please file a bug. > >> >>
Received on Friday, 9 May 2014 06:37:13 UTC