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

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 18 February 2013 19:22 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 E752921F87A5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:22:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.64
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.64 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.040, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 lb-mTgrZX35A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81F8921F876E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:22:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id 12so3001560wgh.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:22:35 -0800 (PST)
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=D9FfgoamSchlzjT1uLoC6I4MPRcIikPvNCA8uIetpU0=; b=hHWGkxPrft20vevf33p0ZIDAed/ApDsmMTjVypxOJggvO8ic/yjCQrHgq6OCufPUmY /Ni3/JviRyos4K6FOMYwylQ4kqCZaD0of8iCN3cBHlMu9TfQwS1bZZ1RA/MFbKettG0l G+yu72QY6n9UV9PBgQ1S3pbQn5lrvXGVyeuvgJOZ5yOCwcOISjFLSbhE7NiiWCaIf6wp FUtXWqrtMToPR/nCiw/Zxq27AqkmPxvjqQ29ror98OZjsy8jtg1fljH11j4wVwh2vYfE If3cZnz+y3vud7tbHSnSWBTYdUWRCwRgQLe6vE0dzTPbaYPumN5r04lALA/z23X4A2FY 1eAA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.76.37 with SMTP id h5mr21679636wjw.21.1361215355468; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:22:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.5.135 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:22:35 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <512265BA.7090206@alum.mit.edu>
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> <512265BA.7090206@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:22:35 -0800
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXxq7BHhF5JtzfH8oe55e1GMMq2yQy0=pcE1+drBwqFxw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
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 19:22:40 -0000

On 18 February 2013 09:32, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 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).

This isn't really necessary.  There's a trade-off that I think can be
made without losing much.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-thomson-rtcweb-data-00