Re: [rtcweb] Amount of streams supported for data channels

[Lennart Grahl <[e-mail]>]

On 11.04.2018 23:24, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>> On 11. Apr 2018, at 22:29, Taylor Brandstetter <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I listened to the recording, and this was the main point being discussed, but the conclusion seemed to be "efficient implementations shouldn't use much (or any) memory for unused streams; we shouldn't make sacrifices in the protocol just to reduce implementation complexity."
> You can implement it in a way to not use much memory for unused streams. However, you need some memory
> for stream you use. That is why I referred to the number of streams used in parallel.

So, implementations with limited resources may still choose to negotiate
less than that to prevent running into exhausting their resources. That
makes sense to me, so I would withdraw the request to make it a MUST.
Could this explanation be added as a comment to the draft, so it's clear
why it's not a MUST?

FWIW, I don't believe any browser would count as an implementation with
limited resources. But I get that there are other implementations
outside of the browser and it may make sense there to limit the amount
of streams. And since we can interoperate with them, we need to handle
it some way or another in the W3C WebRTC spec.

Taylor, any objections?

Cheers
Lennart