Re: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-03

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 05 March 2014 19:49 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6ED11A045B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:49:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.635
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.635 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, J_CHICKENPOX_15=0.6, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9KcajqUJuwRQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:49:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B051D1A048F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 11:49:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.88]) by qmta12.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ZuGe1n0051uE5Es5CvpFKe; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:49:15 +0000
Received: from dhcp-a663.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.166.99]) by omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Zvn41n00S2904qf3cvn6co; Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:47:13 +0000
Message-ID: <53177F38.6060503@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:47:04 +0000
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju)" <Raju.Makaraju@alcatel-lucent.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <530B740E.4090707@ericsson.com> <B163D4A9-AC33-454B-8F93-CC619AFB7A6F@lurchi.franken.de> <5316135A.1010405@alum.mit.edu> <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17826E007A56@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1FE4C082A89A246A11D7F32A95A17826E007A56@US70UWXCHMBA02.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1394048955; bh=9uDgVgXZQ2+0DA2zV8gxs1Fn4ugIVXsSuZwySWHnRws=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=M+M/hgVZQUtzWNkbHnqd5fvN6oMLmpk9rwrdBO049RVd2PzRQL0uYkRjS82vFnXP6 0L0E3Eh6S57pU2SRooLlP8phP6x1eUQZWBXSGp4L5m94UOCE+CQuMSl7TlNTlHWvBq WDRNMpgKEN3RZBanrF19XsTEjpFwO0RhwglafwW9SWRs9v/912TQAphXNsxTI299yw oIEqO2ljnMbTuP/t7lDqpAdPW4FrB0FmXV/7lIgb3aPrmk9v2NX8uu9+4YIrMho7jU 8PsVC+09kM4o8prNQozzmjco0+VsWyWPaPmt1+/jB5E8prd4cyZM31bELWpJFdxx0M hYkbZYh1kGl3A==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/-W96oOvedXAlJH0HT0V5Jd8U_0I
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-03
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 19:49:20 -0000

On 3/4/14 7:24 PM, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) wrote:
>>>> 2. Section 4:
>>>>
>>>> The method
>>>>     used to determine which side uses odd or even is based on the
>>>>     underlying DTLS connection role when used in WebRTC, with the side
>>>>     acting as the DTLS client using even stream identifiers.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't this unnecessary using the vague word of WebRTC instead of simply
>>>> pointing to the DTLS roles of the established data channel?
>>> The point is that in the WebRTC you use DCEP/SCTP/DTLS/UDP and therefore
>>> you can refer to the DTLS role. However, you could use DCEP/SCTP/IP
>>> or DCEP/SCTP/UDP/IP or DCEP/SCTP over something not involving DTLS.
>>> In that case DTLS is not used and you can not refer to the DTLS role.
>>> That is why the restriction is used.
>>
>> So data channels could work over SCTP/IP or SCTP/UDP/IP, but in fact
>> can't solely because the choice of even/odd role is dependent on DTLS
>> connection role?
>>
>> Couldn't you find a way to choose the even/odd role based solely on the
>> SCTP layer and the SDP? Then data channels could be used over those
>> other stacks.
> [Raju]
> +1
> a=setup could be used to determine this, but the final determination is done only at SDP answer (which is same for DTLS).
> For DTLS/SCTP case since both DTLS and SCTP layers use the same a=setup, both DTLS and SCTP client/servers roles match.
> So, DCEP changing text to indicate role determination be done per SCTP client/server role instead of DTLS role may just work and is compatible with existing text.
> [/Raju]

+1

	Thanks,
	Paul