-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 115
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
rename ufrag to usernameFragment #1479
Conversation
renames the ICE ufrag to usernameFragment for consistency. Fixes w3c#1210
@@ -4106,7 +4106,7 @@ | |||
the candidate that it is derived from. For host candidates, the | |||
<code>relatedPort</code> is <code>null</code>. This corresponds to | |||
the <code>rel-port</code> field in <a><code>candidate-attribute</code></a>.</dd> | |||
<dt><code><dfn>ufrag</dfn></code> of type <span class= | |||
<dt><code><dfn>usernameFragment</dfn></code> of type <span class= | |||
"idlAttrType"><a>DOMString</a></span>, readonly, nullable</dt> | |||
<dd>This carries the <code>ufrag</code> as defined in section |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
here (and below) ufrag is the right thing and doesn't need to be replaced.
But technically https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-15.4 talks about ice-ufrag, not ufrag...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"ice-ufrag" is the attribute, "ufrag" is the field inside that attribute. So I think we're ok.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is line 2125 intentional or is that a typo?
webrtc.html
Outdated
<code>undefined</code> nor <code>null</code>, and is not | ||
equal to any ufrag present in the corresponding | ||
equal to any usernameFragment present in the corresponding |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since this isn't code, should just say "username fragment" here like ICE itself does.
webrtc.html
Outdated
<code><var>candidate</var>.ufrag</code> to identify the | ||
ICE <a>generation</a>; if the ufrag is null, process the | ||
<code><var>candidate</var>.usernameFragment</code> to identify the | ||
ICE <a>generation</a>; if the usernameFragment is null, process the |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here we're talking about the member, not the username fragment in the abstract sense, so should be <code>usernameFragment</code>
.
webrtc.html
Outdated
@@ -7687,7 +7687,7 @@ <h2 id="sec.cert-mgmt">Certificate Management</h2> | |||
<code><a data-for="RTCIceCandidate">sdpMLineIndex</a></code> | |||
set to the values associated with this | |||
<code><a>RTCIceTransport</a></code>, with | |||
<code><a data-for="RTCIceCandidate">ufrag</a></code> set to the ufrag | |||
<code><a data-for="RTCIceCandidate">usernameFragment</a></code> set to the usernameFragment |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Here's another place.
I went ahead and addressed my comments in the online editor FYI. |
LGTM. |
The serializer is blocking #8063 ufrag was renamed in w3c/webrtc-pc#1479
The serializer is blocking #8063 ufrag was renamed in w3c/webrtc-pc#1479
renames the ICE ufrag to usernameFragment for consistency.
Fixes #1210
Preview | Diff