- From: Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:05:26 -0700
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAK35n0ZityNh5mVXm_iZPtBz1yD0frcGe1qYjCECsFLO8uabaQ@mail.gmail.com>
PR 325 got merged, but I just created a follow-up PR: https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/349 This incorporates Martin's suggestion of defining two dictionaries: one with and one without the extra attributes. This makes it more clear that the new attributes aren't required for addIceCandidate. Currently the dictionaries are called RTCIceCandidate and RTCSignaledIceCandidate, but I don't have any strong preferences on naming. On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com> wrote: > According to our rough consensus at the Redmond f2f, I created PR 325 > <https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/pull/325> which adds the "foundation", > "priority", "ip", "port", and other fields to the RTCIceCandidate > dictionary. > > The new fields are copied from the equivalent ORTC RTCIceCandidate > <http://ortc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ortc.html#rtcicecandidate*>, > with some small tweaks, such as: > > - For host candidates, instead of relatedAddress defaulting to an > empty string while relatedPort is not present, both fields will simply not > be present. > - Minor grammar/formatting changes. > > I also added this text to the addIceCandidate description: > > "The only members of the candidate attribute used by this method are > candidate, sdpMid and sdpMLineIndex; the rest are ignored." > > Which hopefully clarifies that addIceCandidate only cares about the > candidate string, and not the new set of fields. >
Received on Wednesday, 21 October 2015 20:05:55 UTC