Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Meaning of "Liveness checks have failed" for disconnected ICE state is not clear #565

Closed
aboba opened this issue Jun 8, 2016 · 3 comments
Closed

Meaning of "Liveness checks have failed" for disconnected ICE state is not clear #565

aboba opened this issue Jun 8, 2016 · 3 comments
Labels
1.0 compatibility issue PR exists

Comments

@aboba
Copy link
Contributor

aboba commented Jun 8, 2016 •
edited
Loading

WebRTC 1.0 Issue: w3c/webrtc-pc#692

Related mailing list post: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ortc/2016Jun/0025.html
@aboba
Copy link
Contributor Author

aboba commented Jun 21, 2016

The sentence quoted in the WebRTC 1.0 issue is not present in the ORTC API specification, which assumes that there is no RTCIceTransportState transition caused by loss of consent checks until consent failure.

@aboba aboba mentioned this issue Jul 13, 2016
Open
@aboba
Copy link
Contributor Author

aboba commented Jul 14, 2016

Not clear how this issue will be addressed in WebRTC 1.0 at present, since there is no present guidance in RFC 5245, 7675 or the Trickle ICE draft.

@aboba
Copy link
Contributor Author

aboba commented Sep 9, 2016

WebRTC WG has merged the following PR for this issue: w3c/webrtc-pc#765

aboba added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 9, 2016
@aboba
Add more detail to the definition of the ICE disconnected state.
f4a4410 
Fix for Issue #565

Related WebRTC 1.0 PR: w3c/webrtc-pc#765
@aboba aboba mentioned this issue Sep 9, 2016
Merged
@aboba aboba added the PR exists label Sep 9, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
1.0 compatibility issue PR exists
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@aboba @robin-raymond