Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negotiation
Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Wed, 03 April 2013 18:16 UTC
Return-Path: <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
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 DC85421F8D11 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_74=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_75=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_84=0.6]
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 ukbDavOLa-CK for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:16:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FC8621F8CF0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:16:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.102] (p508FA1D6.dip.t-dialin.net [80.143.161.214]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CB161C0C0BF5; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 20:16:25 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <515C5688.4070004@jesup.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 20:16:24 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3A34089E-2F7A-473D-A76E-0BF28A50035A@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <5158F0FC.3070104@jesup.org> <CABkgnnWBR5SqOF6Ygp7AaEyG19yoG88hpUs4_mWbv59dyCm1gA@mail.gmail.com> <5159E6F9.4070808@jesup.org> <CABkgnnWe-+80WxD8==CxDhAu5+MEa-Tqi7Pr1x8sgkUkE9Z09Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJrXDUGm-LuddkaUgMUp-p8-Bj-B-zBcqomHcDy+jm6WJtT9wQ@mail.gmail.com> <515C5688.4070004@jesup.org>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negotiation
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: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:16:29 -0000
On Apr 3, 2013, at 6:19 PM, Randell Jesup wrote: > On 4/3/2013 12:05 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote: >> I think moving protocol into the dictionary is a good idea. In fact, >> I'd like to see label move there as well, but that's probably asking >> too much. >> >> And now for a little of my own bikeshedding: >> >> I don't understand way we have "stream" and "preset", since you can >> only set "stream" if "preset" is true. Why not just make the rule "if >> stream is set, no in-band message is sent", and get rid of "preset" >> altogether? I really don't like the word "stream" sneaking in, since >> it's so overloaded (MediaStream, RTP Stream, etc). I'd prefer "sid" >> or just "id". > > The reason was that I wanted a way to have the system select a stream to use (that you can then communicate externally to the other side); this avoids any chance of a collision with existing streams. If this is seen as not useful, then we can collapse it to a single entry. (I also toyed with using stream 65535 as a flag to tell the system to allocate one; that seemed too hacky.) > > Since this option was almost solely for those who understand the underlying SCTP-ness of this, I used "stream", but I'm fine with "streamId" or "id" (or "index" might be better than "id", which sounds like a label of some sort). I dislike "sid" for similar reasons to disliking "rtx". > >> I like the idea that reliable+ordered is the default, and both >> reliability and ordered can be set independently. I also prefer >> "ordered" over "outOfOrderAllowed", and along with that I like the >> idea of a "reliable" flag that, if false, is the equivalent of either >> maxRetransmitNum:0 or maxRetransmitTime:0. Finally, I think >> "maxRetransmitTime" should make its units clear, perhaps calling it >> "maxRetransmitMillis", and "maxRetransmitNum" could be shortened to >> simply "maxRetransmits". > > Those seem reasonable (I'd use Millisec/MilliSec or perhaps MS instead of Millis -- how are millisecond time values in other HTML5 specs described?). On "reliable:false" - is this just a shorthand for "ordered:false, maxRetransmits:0"? If so, I'm probably ok with it - it's redundant, but makes it easy to use/read for a common case. Does this mean that if I want ordered:true maxRetransmits:0 or ordered:false maxRetransmits:1 I have to set reliable:true? That doesn't make sense... Also reliability is independent from ordering. I would prefer to avoid redundancy there. Best regards Michael > >> >> So the dictionary for my bikeshed would be: >> >> dictionary DataChannelInit { >> DOMString protocol; >> unsigned short id; >> boolean ordered; >> boolean reliable; >> unsigned short maxRetransmits; >> unsigned short maxRetransmitMillis; >> }; > > -- > Randell Jesup > randell-ietf@jesup.org > > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >
- [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negotiation Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… piranna@gmail.com
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… piranna@gmail.com
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… Michael Tuexen
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… piranna@gmail.com
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] DataChannels API and external negoti… MARCON, JEROME (JEROME)
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Adrian Georgescu
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Matthew Jordan
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Gustavo Garcia Bernardo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Gustavo García
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Marc Abrams
- Re: [rtcweb] Requesting "SDP or not SDP" debate t… Alexandre GOUAILLARD