Disambiguate all uses of RTCSessionDescription.

[jan-ivar]

Fixes #1477.

---

Preview | Diff

[dontcallmedom]

looks good directionally, but with some changes needed

[henbos]

There are some comments but happy with "editors can integrate"

[henbos]

The chairs/etc will have to decide what to do with editorial issues this point in time.

[jan-ivar]

@dontcallmedom Should we merge these editorial PRs to get them in, or hold off?

[henbos]

We thought it looked good but the concern came up of "what if we accidentally introduce a bug before the cut" so we need some stance on what to do with minor editorial changes this late in the process

[dontcallmedom]

from a process perspective merging them in is OK; but the concerns about introducing late bugs in what looks editorial is also reasonable. My guess is that if enough eyeballs have taken a hard look at the PR, then merging should be OK.

[jan-ivar]

My guess is that if enough eyeballs have taken a hard look at the PR, then merging should be OK.

Thanks @dontcallmedom and @henbos. I've looked over the PR again and I found no mistakes.

• I did a full pass of the Files changed diff.
• I followed all "session description" links in the preview.
• I also did the same in the preview diff though I found it unreliable (it trips over webidl that is unchanged by this patch)
• I checked the new "pendingDescription" variable added instead of referring to the description "being rolled back".
• I checked the three apply-rewordings to avoid the phrases "prior to applying" and "is applied" wrt the setting algorithms (replaced by "prior to pendingDescription being set" and "is set successfully" to denote more accurately what is being referred to: the former refers to pending descriptions, the latter refers to being set as current description, which frankly remains vague but is thankfully non-normative).

I think this is an improvement., so I'd like to get this in before the Dec 15th deadline. @alvestrand and @aboba can I get an Editors can integrate?

[jan-ivar]

which frankly remains vague but is thankfully non-normative

Actually, it's not vague because an "answer" can never be pending (that would be "pranswer"), so this is good.

[henbos]

I am happy with editors can integrate but I have already approved it. So can @alvestrand or @aboba give their thumbs up or down?

[jan-ivar]

Thanks @alvestrand I take that as a sign to go ahead.