IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Open data channel issues

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Wed, 26 February 2014 19:50 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 D9AD61A01E4 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:50:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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 1MCEIRBdyXwh for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:50:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD4171A015C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 11:50:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id X0US1n0031wpRvQ5E7q1Cu; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:50:01 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id X7q01n00u3ZTu2S3e7q1Tw; Wed, 26 Feb 2014 19:50:01 +0000
Message-ID: <530E4568.6090402@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:50:00 -0500
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: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <31B9253D-E826-4D07-A8A1-1B062B50F163@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <31B9253D-E826-4D07-A8A1-1B062B50F163@lurchi.franken.de>
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=1393444201; bh=RX9k9CErxdIVpoiMw4indDlj7GcclVojDFlPh4et96w=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=D7sqt9j6zUalkPpVQUAFBp+e8ljANFzqLTqWgRhVXfgxFqXT8YYVvzWYN6JwknJqz pdOwiHf65wcd7URAJpaO904GnjwfgUMa+A9Xg62HkNTlnukrC43VJKZZv1vDeavWDY lqnY8dH1lcL8cSUk7tNDFe4gbR94JX+rfHaulGEyjPYt1ZjVz6y8znllZfB/Q1QVsH hFP+7lXwkVz3b6jdc0/5cYqlpFkGlNCZSIBoUhfB4oKSE1QMdrMmUTKpImDiLzwMa8 wr99EIR4wi/2OAZvtFQy1G1SzAM1kcP5i/6seZ7Ft8DMBbpaytVHXQYotMmUtA6QwB RAWduo5sT4M3Q==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/1DbT231Smg3W3E9I5wTDbjLCJ3Q
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Open data channel issues
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, 26 Feb 2014 19:50:04 -0000

Michael,

There have been no replies to my comments:

http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11518.html
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg11519.html

The first of those is about channels, the 2nd about DCEP. One of my 
issues is that the partitioning between those two drafts is awkward. At 
the least some things from DCEP should be moved to the channel draft. It 
might be better to just merge those two drafts, or do a serious refactoring.

	Thanks,
	Paul


On 2/25/14 6:44 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Magnus asked me to send a list of open issues regarding data channels
> to the list. Here is my current list:
>
>
> * Priority
>    The W3C hasn't defined it yet. Neither for the (S)RTP media nor for the
>    data channels. We agreed on using a non strict policy for the data channels
>    (some sort of wighted fair queueing). That is all.
>
> * Protocol
>    It seems not to be clear what needs to be provided when registering a
>    (sub)-protocol at IANA. And the name of the registry is unclear...
>
> * SCTP parameters.
>    There was discussed the issue how to set SCTP parameters, especially path.max.retrans
>    and association.max.retrans. Also HB.Interval might be of interest.
>    RFC 4060 recommends path.max.retrans=5, association.max.retrans=10, but has multihoming
>    in mind. To avoid the dormant state, path.max.retrans = association.max.retrans should be used.
>    I would suggest 10 for this value. Should HEARTBEATs be disabled?
>
> * U-C 7: Proxy browsing
>
> * Alternate CC for SCTP
>    Currently there is only the standard CC. However, in some places negotiation of CC is
>    mentioned.
>
> I'm currently going through the backlog of comments regarding the data channels
> ID and I'll try to address the issues. If I find other issues, I send an update
> to the above list.
>
> Best regards
> Michael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status