Re: [rtcweb] data channel protocol comments and potential agenda topic

On 07/22/2012 05:08 PM, Ejzak, Richard P (Richard) wrote:
> 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.

I think, if doable, that is a good idea. However, I think the authors 
determined that the data channel control protocol was needed (but 
Randell/Salvatore/Michael know the details).

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