Re: Agenda request: accessors for pending/current descriptions

Sorry, I didn't realize that those attributes are already in the spec.
That was the PR I thought we needed, but it's already done.  In that case,
forget I said anything.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:25 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>