Return-Path: X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB7D1A07F7 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:38:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.561 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id riI_5zhY7JqC for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:38:35 -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 3243B1A07EF for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 10:38:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.200] (p508F3041.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.143.48.65]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84B401C1047EC; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:38:12 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) From: Michael Tuexen In-Reply-To: Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:38:09 +0200 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <7E595777-F510-48A0-87FA-0941621D8B26@lurchi.franken.de> References: <533F191D.8050109@alum.mit.edu> <53425BAF.4070105@alvestrand.no> <5342DE6F.6040306@alvestrand.no> To: Martin Thomson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874) Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/TyJTJF8C_dxtZFtKzcr-K3VqEA4 Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Isolating data channels (Re: Asking TLS for help with media isolation) X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:38:42 -0000 On 07 Apr 2014, at 19:23, Martin Thomson = wrote: > On 7 April 2014 10:20, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> I was actually thinking "protocol" as in the string that goes into = the >> datachannel setup packets. PPIDs would work too for separating >> browser-to-brower from app-to-app, but I wasn't thinking of them. >=20 > That would require carving out a space to use right now. That > impinges to much on application autonomy for my liking. >=20 >> Yes, data channels do cost something to set up. But we're already = paying the >> DTLS tax in order to set up the keying, so it's "just" another >> request/response. How many extra round trips does the SCTP setup add? >=20 > 2. Right now: Correct. But one could optimise the initial handshake... Best regards Michael >=20 >> (and to Matthew: At least we wouldn't have *yet* another congestion = context to >> manage, which would be the case with a separate TCP connection. There = are >> always tradeoffs.) >=20 > I'm certain that Matthew wasn't talking about TCP. >=20 > _______________________________________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >=20