Re: Finishing off "rollback"

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 :)