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.


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.


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:18:08 UTC