- From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2014 19:12:08 -0700
- To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Harald Alvestrand <hta@google.com>
On 18 May 2014 10:50, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: > I'd also like to suggest that we limit rollback to only be valid in the > have-local-offer/have-remote-offer states, given the limited utility of > rollback in pranswer states, as well as the fact that we are trying to > discourage use of pranswer. +1, I think that a lot of people are implementing pranswer as an answer with (maybe) some deferred cleanup. That means that rolling back is going to be highly unlikely to succeed. BTW, I think that we've had general agreement for the rest of this for ages, it's just that no one has actually acted upon it. Maybe I can recommend that you send the editors some text :)
Received on Monday, 19 May 2014 02:12:36 UTC