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

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

>  On 06/23/2015 10:38 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>
>  Does DtlsTransport really have a "disconnected"/retrying state?  I guess
> we could make it "disconnected" any time the underlying IceTransport is
> disconnected, but that adds complexity.  What value do we gain to make it
> worthwhile?
>
>
> I don't know DTLS well enough to say..... I'm sure there are states where
> the ICE connection is working fine, but traffic isn't getting through
> because something's wrong at the DTLS layer - it would be important to
> clearly identify that we're in that state.
>

​The question is whether that's a temporary state or permanent state.  If
permanent, just use the "failed" state.

I don't know of any such temporary situations with DTLS.​



> Otherwise, the fewer states the better.
>

​Yes, the only downside is that the JS then needs to check both
DtlsTransport.state and DtlsTransport.transport.state to know the full
state.  I think I'm OK with that, but it's worth recognizing the tradeoff.​