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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>Q1:
>>
>> Instead of defining a new SDP webrtc-DataChannel attribute, would it be possible to define the parameters as extension parameters to the SDP sctpmap attribute (yes, I know the ABNF currently does not allow that)?
>>
>>Example:
>> 
>>          a=sctpmap:1000 webrtc-datachannel 1;stream=6;subprotocol="CLUE"
>>
>> I am not saying this would be good or bad - at this point I just want to understand whether it would work.
>
> It might work, but you would still need a different mechanism to negotiate multiple data channels.  Why bother with two different formats when one will do?

I am sure the syntax could be defined so that you could define multiple channels. Or, you could use multiple sctpmap attributes.

Anyway, that is a syntax question, so we don't need to spend time on it now.
 
>> Q2:
>> 
>> Would it be possible, for subprotocol values, use the same IANA registry/values as for the WebRTC Data Channel Protocol?
>
> This is really more a question for the data channel design itself.  A decision has been made to use the PPID for framing rather than protocol identification.  There is some discussion of this in another thread.

I am not talking about the PPID - I am talking about the Protocol field in the DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN message, which (afaik) specifies the same thing as the subprotocol parameter in your draft.

 
>> Q3:
>> 
>> It would be good to clarify, if only one data channel is requested (or, even required), that the stream value must be the same in the Offer and Answer.
>
> I thought this also came up in an earlier thread and that it is documented (or should be documented) in the core data channel docs.  My understanding is that the stream id is always the same in both directions for a particular data channel.   

Correct. But, there should be an Offer/Answer procedure section in your draft, which shall say that the stream number must be the same. You can then reference to the data channel doc for justification.

 
>> Q4:
>>
>> I have issues with the max_retr, max_time and unordered parameters.
>> 
>> First, they seem to specify SENDING capabilities, rather than RECEIVING capabilities. 
>> 
>> Second, they seem to describe characteristics associated with the subprotocol, in which case they could be specified in the associated subprotocol specification.
>
> This should be a topic for discussion in London.  As it is currently written, these parameters are of the "take it or leave it" variety, i.e., the answerer either accepts the options listed
> in the offer or rejects the data channel outright.  This is true for the in-band control protocol (please correct me if I am wrong on this), so we adopted the same approach for the 
> SDP-negotiated case.  Some have suggested that we should allow more flexibility in negotiation of these parameters when using SDP.  If there is general agreement that it should be
> done this way, I see no problem with defining parameter negotiation rules for SDP in the next version of the draft.

The difference is that your draft is based on Offer/Answer, which is about indicating receiving capabilities (yes, I know we have broken that rule in the past).

Regards,

Christer