IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Data Channel Negotiation and reopening of decisions

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Mon, 18 February 2013 17:32 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
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 5229421F8C45 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:32:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.335
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.335 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.102, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cx2cHn3K+Tvj for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:44:76:96:59:212]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA04921F8BE9 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 09:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.35]) by qmta14.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1qz11l0070ldTLk5EtYjXD; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:32:43 +0000
Received: from Paul-Kyzivats-MacBook-Pro.local ([50.138.229.164]) by omta04.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 1tYi1l00m3ZTu2S3QtYiUL; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:32:43 +0000
Message-ID: <512265BA.7090206@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:32:42 -0500
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CABkgnnWUpMSBLioSD2+p82vGszX9R0Q4WFfME5j-DuK+B7KVJw@mail.gmail.com> <51166A3C.4000604@jesup.org> <CABkgnnV2m=m+qtM1YR4CPse=gyekvWThon_Nxbf8YMVaNuvq6Q@mail.gmail.com> <511B6C9A.4090904@jesup.org> <CABkgnnUiCKuv_=mgLFf4sRnOb1bY190N7E_+V8gfTbKEUTBnDw@mail.gmail.com> <511CB20C.7020003@jesup.org> <CABkgnnU0idt+ntpKjTCMUCVFO9=_fSjGRPikD6Nk_Uem3L7E8g@mail.gmail.com> <89FAFB5C-9D03-4B76-A306-01F9E4EC4105@lurchi.franken.de> <CABkgnnXFrqTo2QpLhjWt5CmcQc6Kv4=vAgd3DgyndNtL1ewm7g@mail.gmail.com> <8E2722E7-F82A-48D4-80FB-C76929A2E324@lurchi.franken.de> <CABkgnnWzX2tpbadnB3DjhmB7cm6poCDvmxdAW2Z_stMbovJ3gw@mail.gmail.com> <A0FDFC7C-2C85-431C-A03E-0E486F9378D1@lurchi.franken.de>, <CABkgnnWdjV7F9jkbap91q-pLygzWJsTvAOh-m=-9q4VrU9DGUg@mail.gmail.com> <DA07C056-3E80-4E30-B078-5547A174549D@skype.net>, <511F287E.8030500@jesup.org> <3A70CC40-2BB4-40FD-A1B0-3257EC973757@skype.net> <CCA6E561-9792-4799-BE6F-E26C8CB8CDE7@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <CCA6E561-9792-4799-BE6F-E26C8CB8CDE7@lurchi.franken.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1361208763; bh=dL4AWpWyv+XCiLrvlU35kEHmqmJW3XpdTb7c2hHKeYI=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=hwDCFlnKKF2grwxhd0QyK/cZkUXKC06gubb3xW7bIC+CwbgiZwYUVOVVCx1qnqz5m wRiq+ubyzAU3ml/ozOvthGX4bmI6IL0cIacsoMVFc5eGPG11zqVuDX/gGFsKEpMM2W FaniaU3P3NlnscXjTt6OI3kXLLRI84X+aZ9Udyw20Y2glaLH+5W0S3K7tqRqmSjWEn 27SM1BXjZFKHVUbOD/0ilvpqTUEDnZkkNlI7MfhaMkSv65ti4ISL5t3ymzZjKik4oy fOYXNqDCn4Xa0KipjPUVZshh07p3FLBQXpfMg0ncQGcyowiCvH+cpLz5ho/Km/G5o/ 5IAdLdqy74pYg==
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Data Channel Negotiation and reopening of decisions
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: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:32:44 -0000

On 2/16/13 12:58 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>
> On Feb 16, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
>
>> You're right of course... I just can't keep straight which of the things are poor choices and which are reasonable choices that have been bastardized to the point of being poor choices.
>>
>> If we're going to use SCTP, and it has perfectly good unidirectional channels, why can't we just expose those to users of the W3C WEBRTC API?
> Making data channels unidirectional and even making reliability settings a per message property
> (so exposing the SCTP API) would be very simple and make the additional protocol superfluous.
>
> However, WebRTC and RTCWEB groups preferred to make the API similar to Websockets...

So why not provide two levels of API:

1) a low level one that exposed "pure SCTP" with one-way streams

2) a "websocket compatible" API layered on (1).

	Thanks,
	Paul

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status