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.

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

Don't fail sRD(offer) over rid mismatch, just answer with unicast. #2794

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 8, 2022

Conversation

jan-ivar
Copy link
Member

@jan-ivar jan-ivar commented Oct 26, 2022

Fixes #2724.


Preview | Diff

@jan-ivar jan-ivar self-assigned this Oct 26, 2022
@jan-ivar
Copy link
Member Author

@dontcallmedom This PR removes an earlier amendment, but I seem to be tripping over something. Is there a correct way to do this?

@dontcallmedom
Copy link
Member

the narrow technical issue reported in the console is

The container with id process-to-apply-description marked as amended cannot embed the other container of amendment apply-description-restrictions

But if my reading is correct, the real source of the problem is that this pull request reverts #2757 and the part of #2758 that was under the id remote-rid-reneg - if so, I think the correct way to describe this in amendments.json would be simply to remove altogether the current entry under id remote-rid-reneg (since it's no longer a change to the text of the current Rec).

@alvestrand
Copy link
Contributor

Scheduled for November interim.

@jan-ivar jan-ivar marked this pull request as ready for review November 16, 2022 15:08
@jan-ivar
Copy link
Member Author

jan-ivar commented Dec 6, 2022

From November meeting minutes: Harald: I think this works

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

The language around setting a description appears to prohibit renegotiation of RIDs
4 participants