Re: [rtcweb] Data transfer

[Iñaki Baz Castillo <[e-mail]>]

2011/9/16 Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>:
> The argument for having a peer to peer unreliable datagram channel has
> been two:
>
> 1) Minimal delay by direct peer-to-peer connection instead of going
> through a central server. This as you can't normally establish a
> websocket connection to a browser behind a NAT/FW.
>
> 2) Scalability by not requiring a server or having to handle the data
> flows at all on the server side.
>
> As an individual I think these arguments are good, and assuming we can
> find a reasonable solution that fulfills the requirements we should
> specify it.

I'm not opposed to such mechanism if approved. But given the current
WWW reality, web applications always use HTTP for carrying
long-data/documents between client and server, or
client-server-client.

Also I don't think that data transfer can be achieved using an
unreliable data channel (so UDP), is it? For example in SIP protocol
MSRP has emerged for this purpose (data transfer) and it uses TCP/TLS
as transport, so MSRP relay servers are required when both endpoints
are behind NAT.

Regards.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[e-mail]>