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

Anyhow, I agree we should move this discussion elsewhere.

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Sony Ericsson Xperia arc S

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

Hi Randell,

I am not sure whether an WebRTC endpoint (e.g. a browser) would have to implement this. The JS Application can insert the information into the SDP before sending it out on the wire (in cases where SDP is used on the wire).

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Randell Jesup
Sent: 26 February 2014 00:41
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] A few questions on draft-ejzak-dispatch-webrtc-data-channel-sdpneg-00

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

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb