[rtcweb] DCEP draft spec differences.

Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com> Thu, 01 May 2014 11:19 UTC

Return-Path: <tim@phonefromhere.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3091A6F21 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 May 2014 04:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3XvVpoiimMKR for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 May 2014 04:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp002.apm-internet.net (smtp002-out2.apm-internet.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FF4F1A075F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2014 04:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 44101 invoked from network); 1 May 2014 11:19:25 -0000
X-AV-Scan: clean
X-APM-Authkey: 83769 6463
Received: from unknown (HELO zimbra003.verygoodemail.com) ( by smtp002.apm-internet.net with SMTP; 1 May 2014 11:19:25 -0000
Received: from zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (localhost []) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F017C18A0B4E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2014 12:19:24 +0100 (BST)
Received: from limit.westhawk.co.uk (unknown []) by zimbra003.verygoodemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CA1CF18A0688 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 May 2014 12:19:24 +0100 (BST)
From: Tim Panton <tim@phonefromhere.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9FFE4D57-1B15-42F1-BFE7-276AFC7AD232@phonefromhere.com>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 12:19:18 +0100
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/dDxspSIjiBwU7MVkzjDb4sd9A5Q
Subject: [rtcweb] DCEP draft spec differences.
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 01 May 2014 11:19:28 -0000

I see that the proposed draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-03.txt expects an ACK in response to an OPEN of a data channel.
draft-jesup-rtcweb-data-protocol-04.txt - which appears to be what is implemented in Chrome does not expect an ACK - and seems 
to ABORT when it gets one.

Assuming I haven't mis(read/implemented) something....
How do we propose to handle the transition between the 2 incompatible spec revisions ?