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

Re: PR for additional fields in RTCIceCandidate

From: Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:05:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK35n0ZityNh5mVXm_iZPtBz1yD0frcGe1qYjCECsFLO8uabaQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-webrtc@w3.org
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:46 UTC