- From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:06:35 +0200
- To: Stefan Håkansson LK <stefan.lk.hakansson@ericsson.com>, Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 09/23/2015 01:25 PM, Stefan Håkansson LK wrote:
> 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").
OK, that works for me.
>
>> 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 13:07:07 UTC