Re: [rtcweb] A few questions on draft-ejzak-dispatch-webrtc-data-channel-sdpneg-00

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

Christer - comment at end

On 2/25/14 4:08 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Raju,
>
>>> Anyway, can you give me an example of a case where you want to use
>>> SDP, and where you need to negotiate the re-transmission values etc?
>>
>> [Raju] A simple example would be 2 browsers talking thru an intermedia proxy, which wants to know what protocols are
>> being negitiated and used as part of the session.
>
> Sure. I don't question the use-case/need for using SDP to negotiate channel usages.
>
>> 1. Calling client creates data channel (using http://dev.w3.org/2011/webrtc/editor/webrtc.html#idl-def-RTCDataChannel) with desired
>> attributes and sets negotiated=true. So, calling browser saves the attributes for the data channel but won't use DCP.
>> 2. These attributes are sent via SDP to peer client (via proxy).
>> 3. Peer client sets these same attributes while creating data channel and sets negotiated=true but won't do DCP.
>> 4. Peer client echo the same attributes back in SDP answer.
>>
>> Now, data channel stacks on both ends will use same attributes, similar to DCP use case, with the only difference being DCP is not used here.
>
> My question was regarding the re-transmission values etc.
>
> Why do the peers need to negotiate those? Why would an intermediary need to know about those? Why not simply define those in the protocol description, and each endpoint supporting the protocol will then know what values to use?

IIUC, the webrtc people are "humoring* us by making provision for 
registered subprotocol names, and using SDP to negotiate channels. I 
suspect that for the most part they have no intention of using those. 
(The subprotocol name is *optional*.)

So these parameters are needed to properly initialize a channel when the 
subprotocol is not specified.

Also, we still have an open question about what attributes must be 
present in a subprotocol specification. It is at least possible that 
some subprotocols may work with a variety of settings of these attributes.

This draft should probably say more about this. It could say that:

* the SDP MUST be consistent with the attributes specified in the 
subprotocol definition, OR

* the SDP MUST NOT specify attributes specified in the subprotocol 
definition, OR

* attributes specified in the SDP override those specified in the 
subprotocol definition.

	Thanks,
	Paul