Re: [rtcweb] Opening unordered data channel issue

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 22 August 2013 18:28 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
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 CC3B921F9D80 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 COBav5NMlKg0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:28:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s22.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s22.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7D521F9A14 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:28:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-W34 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s22.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:27:59 -0700
X-TMN: [o/41Mtg9PrOt6neWGnncyo59Un0Dfj+9ehTBWbOusE8=]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W342AC06B9DC8F51F73A51D934D0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_bcade7d9-a0fb-4fcd-a084-0e703d7f407d_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 11:27:59 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB114920305@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
References: <EA6D9D69-7A0C-4215-8561-04D9FF7BD868@lurchi.franken.de>, <CAOJ7v-2BwXLfyTaqmqJGe2wyWQKO-xTBpe-9gBwyBwuDoy337A@mail.gmail.com>, <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB114920305@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2013 18:27:59.0772 (UTC) FILETIME=[5473EDC0:01CE9F65]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Opening unordered data channel issue
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, 22 Aug 2013 18:28:06 -0000

I agree that b) is the better choice, of the two.   
 
Fluffy & Justin said: 

> > I agree that b) is the cleanest choice. While this makes the handshake 2-way, it does not suffer from the performance issues that affected the previous 2- and 3-way handshake proposals, since data can be sent immediately without waiting for the ACK.
> 
> +1