IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Tue, 16 April 2013 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 E258821F977B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 q9GQTCB2+qMe for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f47.google.com (mail-wg0-f47.google.com [74.125.82.47]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F19EA21F976C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:11:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id j13so662417wgh.26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:11:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=kpcBZCki6joszYPH9I8KQydmx2SqcEUwfFNve5ZVQ28=; b=JUZRbVlEyYm5Mwx16dhaJLgJMho1F2a2OjKvswu7MtbENzS+uRTXigqkNrfeeKYjSb FLBZpl4VGbq1JcFjSbWTflWZ0VjoPaxJZPEQv94cHAznJWFoWIq5WMLzULOuOj7cD7AG UEVyRlB0gB0r7vIWZBpyJ7h7wEmRAGk0d9B7M94D3H5zcLsapA57c0rigHVH0cXX2tJo HuVS24bjdte2FPhSTIe0EoytNknsBgeECxqh1y53LGBhsQv0G8eHHx1NxgTOBhhN6i4V z2dTMlLL/BMC7F+oNxrAAFgERFlugyysUC5lD4nO3CiPxL+8xPuIvxyaPjKdm/nvf5xt ce1w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.79.227 with SMTP id m3mr5027808wix.12.1366128707504; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.41.35 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <516CE3EC.2050804@jesup.org>
References: <066.3120a55540cacaa74ee5fda0b5273a48@trac.tools.ietf.org> <516CE3EC.2050804@jesup.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 09:11:47 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVaTOLa-hs7AtEgaTk7eq00bEkCY+_8L96Y8pooqybBxA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN
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: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:11:56 -0000

On 15 April 2013 22:38, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> wrote:
> I disagree (though I suppose you don't *need* in-order, but it's a good
> idea).

In order delivery is not going to change anything.  It's neither good
nor bad, it's straight up useless.  It's the ordering of the next
packet that matters.  If that is marked for out of order delivery, it
can be delivered to the application (in this case, I'm talking about
the browser) before the open message.  Thus, the browser can (and
will) receive messages prior to getting an open.

The only safe assumption it can make at this point is that the channel
is configured for out of order delivery.  Better to be silent about in
order delivery and leave that for buffering.

I do agree with you about reliability.  If you care about this message
enough to have it sent, then you probably want retransmission.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email