Re: Agenda request: accessors for pending/current descriptions

There has been consensus at previous meetings that we need to do this,
so I don't think this rule is operative.

The relevant question is what the semantics of the accessors should be,
but I don't see how a PR elucidates that better than this issue.

-Ekr

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
wrote:

> I believe the rule was that we have to have a PR for things we want in.
> That's why I've been making a lot of PRs :).  I think it would be good to
> follow our rule in this case.  It would help make the discussion more
> concrete.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 9:17 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
>> We seem to be having some trouble converging on which accessors
>> we need. See:
>>
>> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/16
>>
>> Can we please have this on the agenda for the interim?
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>