- From: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 11:25:59 +0000
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 23/09/15 13:20, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 09/23/2015 11:55 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
>> On 23/09/15 11:47, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
>>> Reading back on this discussion I note:
>>>
>>> - discussion on why RTCIceCandidate is not a dictionary, but it seems to
>>> become one with [1]
>>> - arguments that if we have "fail on malformed" when constructing we
>>> should have it on addIceCandidate as well - but I don't think we have a
>>> check when constructing
>> PS One argument for changing as [2] proposes is IMO consistency.
>> setLocal/Remote has no "fail on malformed" step, why should addIceCandidate?
> If setLocal/Remote don't fail on malformed (by erroring out the promise
> or calling the error callback), we have a real problem on our hands.
I guess they do, I'm referring to removing the extra step we have for
addIceCandidate (as Dom proposes in the PR). I.e. remove step 3 in the
addIceCandidate method. If the candidate is malformed it would still
fail in (the present) step 4 ("candidate could not be successfully
applied").
>
> You can't even get to the step of checking if the proposed description
> is possible to set without it being well-formed.
>
> Do we need a new bug for this?
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 11:26:33 UTC