W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2015

RE: PR for adding RtpSender.transport, RtpReceiver.transport, RTCDtlsTransport, RTCIceTransport, etc

From: Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2015 18:21:39 +0000
To: Bernard Aboba <Bernard.Aboba@microsoft.com>
CC: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A1782013D0BBD72@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>


IMHO, it would make more sense to use an error event to convey information on errors, rather than adding error-related attributes to objects.
[Raju] I am ok with either approach.

BR
Raju

On Jul 27, 2015, at 05:46, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com<mailto:Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote:
Hi Peter,
Thanks for the updates.




+


+          <dd>The transport has failed as the result of an error (such


+          as a failure to validate the remote fingerprint).</dd>


+        </dl>


+      </section>


Having a read-only attribute, to keep the failure code, from a list of predefined failure codes, associated to ‘failed’ state would help debugging and resolution of the failure.

In addition to that, I am wondering having another read-only attribute ‘infoString’, with even more details, which will help user/application understand the reason for DTLS failure.
The same attribute may be updated even during other states as the implementation see it fits.

BR
Raju

Received on Monday, 27 July 2015 18:22:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:45 UTC