IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN

"Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net> Thu, 25 April 2013 05:28 UTC

Return-Path: <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 234D721F85C0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Gzya7g-zxZnQ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bl2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bl2lp0211.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34D3F21F8201 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 22:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD011.protection.gbl (10.173.161.201) by BL2FFO11HUB012.protection.gbl (10.173.161.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:28:20 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD011.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.161.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.675.0 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:28:20 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.242]) by TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.154]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:28:09 +0000
From: "Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE)" <matthew.kaufman@skype.net>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN
Thread-Index: AQHOPxlA0eoj5OmQXUav6vH8B4+ap5jlf/EAgACZxICAAFMXIA==
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:28:08 +0000
Message-ID: <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484162816C1@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <066.3120a55540cacaa74ee5fda0b5273a48@trac.tools.ietf.org> <5174C8D2.40504@matthew.at> <5177F7EE.1010909@matthew.at> <CAJrXDUGa1=Nqq9WPL57=OkUU9mG7yHz0uzG1KncS8yVzbSAM0A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUGa1=Nqq9WPL57=OkUU9mG7yHz0uzG1KncS8yVzbSAM0A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.33]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A484162816C1tk5ex14mbxc272r_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(189002)(199002)(59766001)(74662001)(50986001)(66066001)(55846006)(76482001)(56776001)(65816001)(81542001)(54316002)(80022001)(69226001)(31966008)(47976001)(49866001)(20776003)(16406001)(74502001)(47446002)(71186001)(81342001)(53806001)(44976003)(54356001)(77982001)(564824004)(51856001)(512874001)(46102001)(63696002)(47736001)(33656001)(56816002)(79102001)(4396001)(6806003)(74366001); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB012; H:TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:InfoDomainNonexistent; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 0827D7ACB9
Cc: "<rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:28:23 -0000

It is a much simpler question as there’s only a couple of options left… how about we throw it on the floor? That seems safest to me.

I’d still love to hear why it is “needed” though.

Matthew Kaufman

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Thatcher
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 5:30 PM
To: Matthew Kaufman
Cc: <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN

If you propose getting rid of it, you still need to answer the question:  what does the browser do with incoming data for an SID that hasn't been registered by the receiver?  It's almost the same question.

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Matthew Kaufman <matthew@matthew.at<mailto:matthew@matthew.at>> wrote:
On 4/21/2013 10:21 PM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:
On 4/11/2013 4:04 PM, rtcweb issue tracker wrote:
#13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN

  Comment on draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol:

  All DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN messages MUST be sent reliably and in-order.


Ok, I've read the document and the whole discussion.

Why do we need DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN messages?

I can't understand the value of any of the things in there except possibly the "Label" field, which is allowed to be empty anyway(?)

Today's additional messages have failed to answer my question above. If there's no answer, then I propose we get rid of it.


Matthew Kaufman
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email