Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and potential agenda topic
"Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com> Sun, 22 July 2012 15:07 UTC
Return-Path: <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.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 6A96421F8666 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.763
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.763 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.486, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 g2ZwaebVX88r for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smail5.alcatel.fr (smail5.alcatel.fr [64.208.49.27]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C10921F8659 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 08:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com [135.120.45.64]) by smail5.alcatel.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3/ICT) with ESMTP id q6MF8Rdv015628 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:08:27 +0200
Received: from US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com (135.5.2.48) by FRMRSSXCHHUB04.dc-m.alcatel-lucent.com (135.120.45.64) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 17:08:27 +0200
Received: from US70TWXCHMBA12.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([169.254.6.16]) by US70UWXCHHUB01.zam.alcatel-lucent.com ([135.5.2.48]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:08:25 -0400
From: "Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)" <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and potential agenda topic
Thread-Index: Ac1lyy6PQOhDXDGkSAC+0BA2iG8yWwBjyKaAAC96dJA=
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:08:24 +0000
Message-ID: <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F1771C06D@US70TWXCHMBA12.zam.alcatel-lucent.com>
References: <03FBA798AC24E3498B74F47FD082A92F1770A313@US70UWXCHMBA04.zam.alcatel-lucent.com> <500A9A7B.8050400@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <500A9A7B.8050400@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [135.5.27.11]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.69 on 155.132.188.13
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and potential agenda topic
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: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 15:07:28 -0000
I grant you that the API discussion belongs in W3C. I don't propose to ignore the websocket API, but surely some adaptations could be considered (in W3C) if they have potential to bring advantages. But several other points I made are unrelated to the design of the API and do belong in rtcweb. In particular, it should be possible to create a data channel (once the SCTP association is established) without the use of a data channel control protocol and without requiring it to be pre-specified in SDP. This is my main suggestion. My next suggestion is to allow the application to specify the ppid value (with raw ascii or binary as options) associated with a data channel (or for each data chunk transmitted on a data channel) for the reasons I described earlier. > -----Original Message----- > From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf > Of Stefan Hakansson LK > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 7:03 AM > To: rtcweb@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and potential agenda > topic > > On 07/19/2012 06:26 PM, Ejzak, Richard P (Richard) wrote: > ... > > > > Why don't we instead specify the API to allow the application to select > > the SCTP transmission characteristics (including stream id, ppid, > > ordered, reliable, etc.) needed per data block to be transmitted. > > Alternately, the API could specify and then allow changes to these > > characteristics for a channel to influence the SCTP protocol options > > selected without initiating a data channel protocol negotiation or > > requiring release of the channel. > > The current API proposal is aligned to the WebSocket API. This API is > state-of-art for web developers, is gaining momentum, and designing > something very different would be a mistake IMO. Anyway, the API > discussion and design belongs in the webrtc WG. > > Stefan > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
- [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and poten… Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
- Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and p… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and p… Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
- Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and p… Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and p… Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
- Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and p… Stefan Hakansson LK
- Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and p… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and p… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and p… Ejzak, Richard P (Richard)
- Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and p… Harald Alvestrand