-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Should be more clear about what states/methods allow a "rollback" #760
Comments
Fixes rtcweb-wg#760. This raises a question I haven't seen discussed before: can you roll back a provisional answer? I'd been assuming "no" but I could be wrong.
Fixes rtcweb-wg#760. This raises a question I haven't seen discussed before: can you roll back a provisional answer? I'd been assuming "no" but I could be wrong.
Long discussion on the editor's call today. Consensus was it would be easier if set{Local,Remote}Description("rollback") always did the same thing no matter what state you were in: roll you back to the stable state. |
Just to clarify, are these legal?:
If it doesn't matter whether you call |
Yes, both are legal. We actually discussed just having a rollback method. The net effect will be the same as calling a single rollback method. The only reasons for this are 1) match existing code 2) if the far side is instigating the rollback, some apps can use a just take what you get over signalling and stuff it into setRemoteDescritption without even knowing if it is a rollback or something else. |
Both 1) and 2) above seem crazy to me. Not sure what they are suppose to do. I understand that
And
|
Rollback, no matter what state you are in, takes you back to the last stable state. The stable state if a function of both local and remote so it does not matter if you call the rollback on the local or remote API. |
I think this can be closed now |
This has been fixed. |
We have these rules in
setLocalDescription
(and similar rules insetRemoteDescription
).But they don't mention "rollback". They should. Related WebRTC issue: w3c/webrtc-pc#1470
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: