- From: Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:27:33 +0000
- To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2016-03-17 09:25, Adam Bergkvist wrote: > On 2016-03-17 08:44, Adam Bergkvist wrote: >> Hi >> >> We have two pieces of information in an ice candidate to identify a >> m-line sdpMid and sdpMLineIndex. >> >> The successful case is when both identifiers points to the same m-line >> or if one identifies an m-line while the other is null. >> >> We have the following uncertain/error cases >> 1. Both are set, one identifies an m-line while the other is bogus. >> 2. Both are set and point to different m-lines. >> 3. One is set, and points to an non-existent m-line (clearly an error). >> >> So the first question is: what should we do in 1 and 2? >> >> The second question is where this should be specified. addIceCandidate() >> is specified to do some synchronous checks on the candidate argument and >> then start a 'process to apply' the candidate. We could either check for >> the above errors in the synchronous section and specify it in the >> webrtc-pc document. The alternative is to let these checks be part of >> the 'process to apply' candidate and let the error be asynchronously >> reported to JavaScript. In the second case, JSEP would need to specify this. > > I just realized that the addIceCandidate() I describe above (with a > synchronous section and the 'process to apply' candidate) is not yet > released. You find it on the master branch in the github repo. Sorry for > that. Preview: http://rawgit.com/w3c/webrtc-pc/master/webrtc.html#widl-RTCPeerConnection-addIceCandidate-Promise-void--RTCIceCandidateInit-RTCIceCandidate-candidate /Adam
Received on Thursday, 17 March 2016 08:28:06 UTC