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

Re: Should setConfiguration fire onnegotiationneeded?

From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:05:42 +0000
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A222C88B6882744D8D4B9681B315889024160E89@ESESSMB307.ericsson.se>
I agree. It's better to be a bit too specific here than the other way 
around.

/Adam

On 2015-10-23 19:56, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> I *think* the rule implies that, yes, it should fire onnn.   But it
> would be nice if the spec were more explicit about it so that we make
> sure the behavior is the same across browsers.
>
>
> ‚Äč
>
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 1:32 PM, Taylor Brandstetter
> <deadbeef@google.com <mailto:deadbeef@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     If setConfiguration changes the ICE candidate policy or the set of
>     STUN/TURN servers, the changes won't go into effect until the next
>     gathering phase, which will occur on an ICE restart.
>
>     An ICE restart obviously requires signaling. So it seems to me that
>     in these cases, setConfiguration should fire onnegotiationneeded,
>     according to this rule
>     <http://w3c.github.io/webrtc-pc/#setting-negotiation-needed>: "If an
>     operation is performed on an RTCPeerConnection that requires
>     signaling, the connection will be marked as needing negotiation."
>
>     Thoughts?
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2015 13:06:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:47 UTC