jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
I was reading this draft and noticed a couple of minor wording issues that made the text not as clear as it could be. I don't believe the changes are controversial, or change the intention of the draft.
These changes look good - I agree the rewrite of the offer/answer paragraph is a nice improvement.
Looks fine to me

Related discussion:
text: The basic operations that the applications can have the media engine do are: <del> Start exchanging media to a given remote peer, but keep all the </del> <ins> Start exchanging media with a given remote peer, but keep all the </ins> resources reserved in the offer. Start exchanging media with a given remote peer, and free any
Code change:
I was reading this draft and noticed a couple of minor wording issues that made the text not as clear as it could be. I don't believe the changes are controversial, or change the intention of the draft.
These changes look good - I agree the rewrite of the offer/answer paragraph is a nice improvement.
Looks fine to me

Related discussion:
text: 4.1.4. Session description objects (RTCSessionDescription) may be of type <del> "offer", "pranswer", and "answer".  These types provide information as to how the description parameter should be parsed, and how the media state should be changed. </del> <ins> "offer", "pranswer", or "answer".  These types provide information as to how the description parameter should be parsed, and how the media state should be changed. </ins> "offer" indicates that a description should be parsed as an offer; said description may include many possible media configurations.  A
Code change:
I was reading this draft and noticed a couple of minor wording issues that made the text not as clear as it could be. I don't believe the changes are controversial, or change the intention of the draft.
These changes look good - I agree the rewrite of the offer/answer paragraph is a nice improvement.
Looks fine to me

Related discussion:
text: This API changes the local media state; among other things, it sets up local resources for sending and encoding media. <del> If setRemoteDescription was previously called with an offer, and setLocalDescription is called with an answer (provisional or final), </del> <ins> If setLocalDescription was previously called with an offer, and setRemoteDescription is called with an answer (provisional or final), </ins> and the media directions are compatible, and media are available to send, this will result in the starting of media transmission.
Code change:
Page 62 has a bullet ending "If this is a local description, the 'ice-lite' attribute MUST NOT be specified." This sentence is leftover from before SDP munging was prohibited and should be removed.

Related discussion:
text: "a=rid" lines. Each m= section is also checked to ensure prohibited features are <del> not used.  If this is a local description, the "ice-lite" attribute MUST NOT be specified. </del> <ins> not used. </ins> If the RTP/RTCP multiplexing policy is "require", each m= section MUST contain an "a=rtcp-mux" attribute.  If an "m=" section
Code change:
Section 3.3, paragraph 3 is an example of text that should have been removed with SDP munging. Please remove it.
Munging remote SDP is still allowed, but I agree that we don't need to get into the mechanics of how to do it. Agree this para should be removed, and the last para reworked accordingly.

Related discussion:
text: have to keep pace with the changes to SDP, at least until the time that this new encoding eclipsed SDP in popularity. <del> However, to simplify Javascript processing, and provide for future flexibility, the SDP syntax is encapsulated within a SessionDescription object, which can be constructed from SDP, and be serialized out to SDP.  If future specifications agree on a JSON format for session descriptions, we could easily enable this object to generate and consume that JSON. Other methods may be added to SessionDescription in the future to simplify handling of SessionDescriptions from Javascript.  In the meantime, Javascript libraries can be used to perform these manipulations. Note that most applications should be able to treat the </del> <ins> However, to provide for future flexibility, the SDP syntax is encapsulated within a SessionDescription object, which can be constructed from SDP, and be serialized out to SDP.  If future specifications agree on a JSON format for session descriptions, we could easily enable this object to generate and consume that JSON. As detailed below, most applications should be able to treat the </ins> SessionDescriptions produced and consumed by these various API calls as opaque blobs; that is, the application will not need to read or change them.
Code change:
Fixes URL
See comment in
Alright, try this version
Section 5.8 contains the sentence: "If there is no RtpTransceiver associated with this m= section (which will only happen when applying an offer)..." -- it is grammatically ambiguous whether this says that the absence of an RtpTranceiver can only happen with an offer, or if the presence of an RtpTranceiver can only happen with an offer. Suggest rephrasing as: "If applying an offer and there is no RtpTransceiver associated with this m= section, find one..."
NAME can you take a look at this?
I'm not sold on this approach, since it then invites the question, what should one do if this condition happens when applying an answer? My suggestion would be to still call this out explicitly, but try to avoid the ambiguity noted above by changing the parenthetical to its own sentence at the end of the paragraph, e.g. "Note that this situation will only occur when applying an offer."
I changed it to that.
LGTM

Related discussion:
text: If the m= section proto value indicates use of RTP: <del> If there is no RtpTransceiver associated with this m= section (which will only happen when applying an offer), find one and associate it with this m= section according to the following steps: </del> <ins> If there is no RtpTransceiver associated with this m= section, find one and associate it with this m= section according to the following steps.  Note that this situation will only occur when applying an offer. </ins> Find the RtpTransceiver that corresponds to this m= section, using the mapping between transceivers and m= section
Code change:
Section 3.6.2 would ideally include a disclaimer, like we have for many other features, indicating that -- despite normative statements in this section -- the remote side might not honor imageattr because of legacy behavior, and that implementations MUST be prepared to handle such situations.
Sure. This should probably go into 3.6 or 3.6.1, since those govern sent imageattr attribs.
LGTM

Related discussion:
text: use the "a=imageattr" SDP attribute RFC6236 to indicate what video frame sizes it is capable of receiving.  A receiver may have hard limits on what its video decoder can process, or it may have some <del> maximum set by policy. </del> <ins> maximum set by policy.  By specifying these limits in an "a=imageattr" attribute, JSEP endpoints can attempt to ensure that the remote sender transmits video at an acceptable resolution. However, when communicating with a non-JSEP endpoint that does not understand this attribute, any signaled limits may be exceeded, and the JSEP implementation MUST handle this gracefully, e.g., by discarding the video. </ins> Note that certain codecs support transmission of samples with aspect ratios other than 1.0 (i.e., non-square pixels).  JSEP
Code change:
This seems like a normative change. I'm not saying I'm against this, but what's the rationale?
Adam's argument in , which I found to be convincing.

Related discussion:
text: hardware decoder capababilities, local policy) to determine the absolute minimum and maximum sizes it can receive.  If there are no known local limits, the "a=imageattr" attribute SHOULD be omitted. <ins> If these local limits preclude receiving any video, i.e., the degenerate case of no permitted resolutions, the "a=imageattr" attribute MUST be omitted, and the m= section MUST be marked as sendonly/inactive, as appropriate. </ins> Otherwise, an "a=imageattr" attribute is created with "recv" direction, and the resulting resolution space formed from the aforementioned intersection is used to specify its minimum and <del> maximum x= and y= values.  If the intersection is the null set, i.e., the degenerate case of no permitted resolutions, this MUST be represented by x=0 and y=0 values. </del> <ins> maximum x= and y= values. </ins> The rules here express a single set of preferences, and therefore, the "a=imageattr" q= value is not important.  It SHOULD be set to
Code change:
This seems like a normative change. I'm not saying I'm against this, but what's the rationale?
Adam's argument in , which I found to be convincing.

Related discussion:
text: by allowing receipt of arbitrarily small resolutions, perhaps via fallback to a software decoder. <del> In the special case of a maximum resolution of [0, 0], as described above, the sender MUST NOT transmit the encoding. </del> 3.7. JSEP supports simulcast transmission of a MediaStreamTrack, where
Code change:
In the last paragraph of section 8 at "programmer MUST recognize". That is not an appropriate use of 2119. I suggest "needs to be aware" instead of "MUST recognize".
This seems right

Related discussion:
text: guarantee that applications do so.  The JSEP implementation MUST be prepared for the JS to pass in bogus data instead. <del> Conversely, the application programmer MUST recognize that the JS </del> <ins> Conversely, the application programmer needs to be aware that the JS </ins> does not have complete control of endpoint behavior.  One case that bears particular mention is that editing ICE candidates out of the SDP or suppressing trickled candidates does not have the expected
Code change:
Section 1.2 second paragraph - "This was rejected based on a feeling". Can you write something that speaks to consensus here? "Based on a feeling" isn't quite right. Maybe "using the argument"?
Sure.
LGTM

Related discussion:
text: A second approach that was considered but not chosen was to decouple the management of the media control objects from session descriptions, instead offering APIs that would control each component <del> directly.  This was rejected based on a feeling that requiring </del> <ins> directly.  This was rejected based on the argument that requiring </ins> exposure of this level of complexity to the application programmer would not be beneficial; it would result in an API where even a simple example would require a significant amount of code to
Code change:
Second paragraph of 3.2, last sentence: at "these parameters or reject them" - "these" and "them" have ambiguous antecedents. It's not clear if you are trying to point to the parameters that don't follow the earlier stated rule, or all parameters. The sentence is complex. Splitting it up and finding a way to avoid the need for the semicolon will likely make it easier to say what you mean.
I agree that this is messy. Editorial.
LGTMLG with comment

Related discussion:
text: of codecs sent to a remote party indicates what the local side is willing to receive, which, when intersected with the set of codecs the remote side supports, specifies what the remote side should send. <del> However, not all parameters follow this rule; for example, the fingerprints RFC8122 sent to a remote party are calculated based on the local certificate(s) offered; the remote party MUST either accept these parameters or reject them altogether, with no option to choose different values. </del> <ins> However, not all parameters follow this rule; some parameters are declarative and the remote side MUST either accept them or reject them altogether.  An example of such a parameter is the DTLS fingerprints RFC8122, which are calculated based on the local certificate(s) offered, and are not subject to negotiation. </ins> In addition, various RFCs put different conditions on the format of offers versus answers.  For example, an offer may propose an
Code change:
lgtm
I think the dummy candidates should be v4 not v6 as many things just don't do v6 but other than that looks reasonable. You don't really need to specify the address at all the the lines when you don't know the port can just look like a=rtcp:9 With no IP address or family
NAME The IP6 vs IP4 is described in URL, so this isn't a JSEP thing. Given that this is part of the trickle spec, and only trickle endpoints will get these candidates, I don't see any problem. As to whether a=rtcp can just have the port, consider the case where RTP candidates have been gathered, but no RTCP candidates have yet been gathered. In that case, we certainly need to have the full a=rtcp:9 IP6 ::, so I think it makes sense to include it in all cases where RTCP candidates have not yet been gathered.
I don't care much about this so fine if not change is made. I agree it is a trickle-ice draft issue. However, when I read that, it seems that it would be fine with "a=rtcp:9" with no address. It seems the reason we used 9 was to provide something that stuff that did not implement trickle ICE would not barf on. I have no tested but an address of "IP6 ::" seems like something that has high odds of stuff barfing on. Anyways, no big deal with me one way or the other. On Sep 12, 2014, at 7:49 PM, Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote:
Only trickle endpoints will even receive an offer with these dummy addresses and ports, so compatibility with old non-trickle stuff is not an issue. LMK if you have any further concerns, otherwise I will merge later today.
I concur that we should merge this. , Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote:
On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote: ah - my bad - makes sense Merge it !

Related discussion:
text: header extension defined in I-D.ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle- negotiation, Section 11. <ins> An "a=rtcp" line, as specified in RFC3605, Section 2.1, containing the dummy value "9 IN IP6 ::", because no candidates have yet been gathered. </ins> An "a=msid" line, as specified in I-D.ietf-mmusic-msid, Section 2. An "a=sendrecv" line, as specified in RFC3264, Section 5.1.
Code change:
lgtm
I think the dummy candidates should be v4 not v6 as many things just don't do v6 but other than that looks reasonable. You don't really need to specify the address at all the the lines when you don't know the port can just look like a=rtcp:9 With no IP address or family
NAME The IP6 vs IP4 is described in URL, so this isn't a JSEP thing. Given that this is part of the trickle spec, and only trickle endpoints will get these candidates, I don't see any problem. As to whether a=rtcp can just have the port, consider the case where RTP candidates have been gathered, but no RTCP candidates have yet been gathered. In that case, we certainly need to have the full a=rtcp:9 IP6 ::, so I think it makes sense to include it in all cases where RTCP candidates have not yet been gathered.
I don't care much about this so fine if not change is made. I agree it is a trickle-ice draft issue. However, when I read that, it seems that it would be fine with "a=rtcp:9" with no address. It seems the reason we used 9 was to provide something that stuff that did not implement trickle ICE would not barf on. I have no tested but an address of "IP6 ::" seems like something that has high odds of stuff barfing on. Anyways, no big deal with me one way or the other. On Sep 12, 2014, at 7:49 PM, Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote:
Only trickle endpoints will even receive an offer with these dummy addresses and ports, so compatibility with old non-trickle stuff is not an issue. LMK if you have any further concerns, otherwise I will merge later today.
I concur that we should merge this. , Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote:
On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote: ah - my bad - makes sense Merge it !

Related discussion:
text: Each "m=" and c=" line MUST be filled in with the port and address of the default candidate for the m= section, as described in <del> RFC5245, Section 4.3.  If no candidates have yet been gathered, the dummy values MUST be used, as described above.  [TODO: update profile UDP/TCP per default candidate] </del> <ins> RFC5245, Section 4.3.  Each "a=rtcp" attribute line MUST also be filled in with the port and address of the appropriate default candidate, either the default RTP or RTCP candidate, depending on whether RTCP multiplexing is currently active or not.  Note that if RTCP multiplexing is being offered, but not yet active, the default RTCP candidate MUST be used, as indicated in RFC5761, section 5.1.3.  In each case, if no candidates of the desired type have yet been gathered, dummy values MUST be used, as described above.  [TODO: update profile UDP/TCP per default candidate] </ins> Each "a=mid" line MUST stay the same.
Code change:
lgtm
I think the dummy candidates should be v4 not v6 as many things just don't do v6 but other than that looks reasonable. You don't really need to specify the address at all the the lines when you don't know the port can just look like a=rtcp:9 With no IP address or family
NAME The IP6 vs IP4 is described in URL, so this isn't a JSEP thing. Given that this is part of the trickle spec, and only trickle endpoints will get these candidates, I don't see any problem. As to whether a=rtcp can just have the port, consider the case where RTP candidates have been gathered, but no RTCP candidates have yet been gathered. In that case, we certainly need to have the full a=rtcp:9 IP6 ::, so I think it makes sense to include it in all cases where RTCP candidates have not yet been gathered.
I don't care much about this so fine if not change is made. I agree it is a trickle-ice draft issue. However, when I read that, it seems that it would be fine with "a=rtcp:9" with no address. It seems the reason we used 9 was to provide something that stuff that did not implement trickle ICE would not barf on. I have no tested but an address of "IP6 ::" seems like something that has high odds of stuff barfing on. Anyways, no big deal with me one way or the other. On Sep 12, 2014, at 7:49 PM, Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote:
Only trickle endpoints will even receive an offer with these dummy addresses and ports, so compatibility with old non-trickle stuff is not an issue. LMK if you have any further concerns, otherwise I will merge later today.
I concur that we should merge this. , Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote:
On Sep 18, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Justin Uberti EMAIL wrote: ah - my bad - makes sense Merge it !

Related discussion:
text: Section 9.1.  The "mid" value MUST match that specified in the offer. <ins> An "a=rtcp" line, as specified in RFC3605, Section 2.1, containing the dummy value "9 IN IP6 ::", because no candidates have yet been gathered. </ins> If a local MediaStreamTrack has been associated, an "a=msid" line, as specified in I-D.ietf-mmusic-msid, Section 2.
Code change:
Various fixes for 60.2: Removed parens from API names, removed comment. - put the term stable in quotes, removed comment. - put the term sess-id in angle brackets to match SDP spec, removed comment. - made the tls-id attribute consistent with other SDP attributes, removed comment. - removed quotes from IceRestart option, removed comment.

"IceRestart" option / IceRestart option Justin: LGTM
tls-id value / "a=tls-id" value Justin: The source RFC seems to prefer "tls-id" when discussing values.
During the editing of the Cluster 238 docs, it was decided that it's author's choice when formatting SDP attributes. Although RFC 8842 uses the format '"tls-id" attribute', this document more consistently uses "a=attribute-name" format for SDP attributes, which is the format that the SDP spec [RFC8866] uses. I'll update this document to consistently use "a=tls-id"
sess-id / (Section 5.2.1, second bullet item) Justin: LGTM
the stable state (1 instance) / the "stable" state (3 instances) >(Also, should 'the previous stable state' be 'a previous stable state' (per Section 5.7) or 'the previous "stable" state'?) Justin: The quoted form is preferred, including the case of "previous stable state".
[Breaking up issue /60 into smaller bites] The following terms appear to be used inconsistently in this document. Please let us know which form is preferred. Justin: There seems to be a pretty clear preponderance for the non-parenthetical form, so let's keep that. W3C also does not use (). Jean: We'll remove the parens (camelCase is sufficient formatting).

Related discussion:
text: JSEP's handling of session descriptions is simple and straightforward.  Whenever an offer/answer exchange is needed, the <del> initiating side creates an offer by calling a createOffer() API.  The </del> <ins> initiating side creates an offer by calling a createOffer API.  The </ins> application then uses that offer to set up its local config via the <del> setLocalDescription() API.  The offer is finally sent off to the remote side over its preferred signaling mechanism (e.g., WebSockets); upon receipt of that offer, the remote party installs it using the setRemoteDescription() API. </del> <ins> setLocalDescription API.  The offer is finally sent off to the remote side over its preferred signaling mechanism (e.g., WebSockets); upon receipt of that offer, the remote party installs it using the setRemoteDescription API. </ins> To complete the offer/answer exchange, the remote party uses the <del> createAnswer() API to generate an appropriate answer, applies it using the setLocalDescription() API, and sends the answer back to the </del> <ins> createAnswer API to generate an appropriate answer, applies it using the setLocalDescription API, and sends the answer back to the </ins> initiator over the signaling channel.  When the initiator gets that <del> answer, it installs it using the setRemoteDescription() API, and </del> <ins> answer, it installs it using the setRemoteDescription API, and </ins> initial setup is complete.  This process can be repeated for additional offer/answer exchanges.