[Jingle] open issue: removing candidates

Justin Uberti juberti at google.com
Tue May 12 01:38:22 CDT 2009


What I meant to say is that removal of a single candidate is typically
unnecessary, but if you redo all your candidates you do want to prevent the
other side from wasting time on dead ones.

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:32 PM, Justin Karneges <justin at affinix.com>wrote:

> On Monday 11 May 2009 22:23:19 Justin Uberti wrote:
> > Removal of candidates is unnecessary. The client that offered the
> candidate
> > can simply stop using it, at which point connectivity will no longer
> exist,
> > and ICE will force the use of a different candidate.
> > The generation attribute is used for when ICE connectivity fails on all
> > candidates, and a new set of candidates is needed. In this the client
> > allocates a new set of candidates, and the candidates from the older
> > generation are to be discarded upon receipt of a candidate from a newer
> > generation. This would be useful in the case mentioned above where you
> get
> > a new IP while the call is active.
>
> It sounds like the sole purpose of the generation attribute is to remove
> old
> candidates.  However, at the start of your message you say, "removal of
> candidates is unnecessary."  Did you mean to say that having a mechanism to
> remove candidates individually or one-by-one is unnecessary, because we
> already have a way to remove candidates en masse?
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/attachments/20090511/10674481/attachment.htm>


More information about the Jingle mailing list