Re: [rtcweb] A few questions on draft-ejzak-dispatch-webrtc-data-channel-sdpneg-00

[Randell Jesup <[e-mail]>]

On 2/24/2014 10:21 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> I still don't think the information belong to SDP - they define protocol characteristics. The protocol specification should define re-transmission timers etc.
>
> Anyway, we can argue about it later. At this moment I think the focus should be on whether to move forward with the mechanism to begin with, and the main feature of the mechanism - which is about negotiating usage of channels :)

This (whether to move forward) is my concern (in addition to Mary's 
about this being the wrong group - MMUSIC is where the SDP should be and 
has been).

The apparent justification for this document is "This document defines 
SDP-based out-of-band negotiation procedures to establish WebRTC data 
channels for transport of well-defined sub- protocols." This seems a 
pretty sparse justification.

We very purposely avoided using SDP for channel setup (after MUCH 
discussion at Boston and elsewhere).  That isn't to say that for 
non-webrtc usage, one could define an SDP used to externally-negotiate 
the settings for DataChannels, which this appears to be.  But I think 
there should a clearer statement as to "why" we should invest the time 
to standardize this now, not just that we "can".  For example, if CLUE 
really wants to use this instead of in-band opens, then maybe there's a 
reason to do so - but don't expect webrtc endpoints to implement this.  
And if so, it should be done in CLUE by request to MMUSIC.

At this point I don't see need to move forward with this, and certainly 
not here.  And I certainly don't want this to delay finalizing the stuff 
needed in MMUSIC for WebRTC use of DataChannels

-- 
Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com