[rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-03
Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Sun, 23 February 2014 03:07 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 82FA41A0285 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:07:08 -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 RMwjMNpnh1P0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:07:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB28B1A0281 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Feb 2014 19:07:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Veus1n0071wpRvQ5Ff72sp; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 03:07:02 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Vf711n00R3ZTu2S3ef72qJ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 03:07:02 +0000
Message-ID: <530965D5.9090105@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2014 22:07:01 -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" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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=1393124822; bh=WLrFjvM17cDtN3qP/Gjo5g0rDe0hiOmzXaxXydjUihA=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=G1LB6vuyGk4d/8IUzpne43qkYJlTE5sMgrjjFV2KDsGElXvYkXxhFx+PHwegr8bhS PU1UyOeNvEmpIpAg5D86SI267Mys+xaI1X5rWOtdwmjduc0sHr7PhnKdFTizb94UPD cikGlP9XKfzHd1HrfxXk37zxT+XMQlXJ2dvqK9l+filGFO+LB4wQT8C05dPzs9+xzl j5GPDZZdsPMPsFhH5uhqj9inEMd38/qz0531Ss42BSsAsi/SW6mWbMPqWSiX+ZUMv+ L5QbsReugvWtpipxgEkfLbweeHOmdZwpLlA2SfrIHlnbSHotUKnwQXt2A5OcU/IzdZ yWg8Ie+kZqqWg==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/BPouNVYuaTTc2Rgh07eCRXKgMko
Subject: [rtcweb] 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: Sun, 23 Feb 2014 03:07:08 -0000
A few comments on this draft:
* Section 5.1:
DATA_CHANNEL_PARTIAL_RELIABLE_TIMED (0x02): The channel provides
a partial reliable in-order bi-directional Communication
channel. User messages might not be transmitted or
retransmitted after a specified life-time given in milli-
seconds in the Reliability Parameter. This life-time starts
when providing the user message to the Javascript engine.
The last sentence above is troubling. This protocol won't always be used
via Javascript. Can we please have a definition that doesn't depend on
that? Is the timing being done by SCTP, or are you assuming that a data
channel layer on top of SCTP is doing this? Is it specific to SCEP, or
is it still applicable when the channel has been established via
external negotiation?
Does use of this option imply that retransmission continues until this
time limit is reached? Or might it stop after some implementation
defined number of retransmissions?
The description of the reliability parameter says:
This field is ignored if a reliable channel is used.
IMO folk wisdom says that some specific value (e.g., 0) should be
prescribed to be used in such cases. That makes things more
deterministic and provides more flexibility in extending the protocol in
the future.
The name "Protocol" (and "Protocol Length") here is troublesome, because
it is ambiguous with other sorts of uses. (See my comment about this
point earlier today wrt draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-07.) Others
(including draft-ejzak-mmusic-data-channel-sdpneg-00 and websockets)
call this "subprotocol". Using that would make it a little less confusing.
Also, ISTM that all of these things are applicable to externally
negotiated channels, and so ought to be defined by
draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel. (But of course their use in the
DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN message belongs here.)
* Section 8.4:
ISTM there ought to be a template of the minimum information that the
specification for a registered (sub)protocol MUST (SHOULD?) include. E.g.,
- what Channel Type(s) are valid for this (sub)protocol
- A contact for more information about this protocol
Thanks,
Paul
- [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-proto… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-p… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-p… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [rtcweb] Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-p… Michael Tuexen