IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Amount of streams supported for data channels

Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Fri, 13 April 2018 16:17 UTC

Return-Path: <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
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 2DBF3127333 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 Br7nvVcATbkP for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:17:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from drew.franken.de (mail-n.franken.de [193.175.24.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A155D127275 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 09:17:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2003:cd:6f00:5e00:64b7:97b8:c253:28cb] (p200300CD6F005E0064B797B8C25328CB.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:cd:6f00:5e00:64b7:97b8:c253:28cb]) (Authenticated sender: lurchi) by drew.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D809721E280C; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 18:17:45 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
From: Michael Tuexen <michael.tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <d542717b-0dfe-b359-02fe-b904a9cc0159@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 18:17:44 +0200
Cc: Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B50613F3-7069-4716-8C14-4B6772A2DA4C@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <08aec6ec-62ce-a1e4-7781-06d50f5f66f5@gmail.com> <CAK35n0YekgWUSd8opG3YRaYKf4PVYZp9TAtN1beeQ-JO=kzv8A@mail.gmail.com> <7E12AF68-A247-469D-887E-065FEBD47D66@lurchi.franken.de> <CAK35n0Z491szZ+6R8Z+qMQxd2p6m4TT9_XZrjgYwsQPho2H+Kw@mail.gmail.com> <1683BDE2-6E74-40BD-966B-ED7DFEB58083@lurchi.franken.de> <2302437f-68b9-b68f-ac14-011f4cf4066d@gmail.com> <CAK35n0Y_e-c=YKc0pFTiD+n_NkKhZXb1MaKscnCbgkWoiYsMxA@mail.gmail.com> <4FFCC73B-7BFB-4A32-9B13-C4C0F5BA7408@lurchi.franken.de> <d542717b-0dfe-b359-02fe-b904a9cc0159@gmail.com>
To: Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/fzeG534mFYgq7JMB8NdK5k52m9Y>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Amount of streams supported for data channels
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:17:50 -0000

> On 13. Apr 2018, at 16:14, Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 13.04.2018 08:03, Michael Tuexen wrote:
>>> On 13. Apr 2018, at 06:28, Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> FWIW, I don't believe any browser would count as an implementation with
>>>> limited resources.
>>> 
>>> If so, it could say "browsers MUST attempt to negotiate 65535 streams, but be prepared for negotiating fewer, e.g. when communicating with a non-WebRTC endpoint with limited resources"?
>>> 
>>> Or could just add an explanation for the SHOULD; I don't have strong opinions about this.
>> You can make a text suggestion... I would vote for an explanation of the SHOULD.
> 
> A suggestion:
> 
>   The number of streams negotiated during SCTP association setup SHOULD
>   be 65535, which is the maximum number of streams that can be
>   negotiated during the association setup. Implementations with limited
>   resources may support less than 65535 streams to mitigate resource
>   exhaustion when many streams are being used in parallel.
I would suggest to use (just changing one may to MAY):

  The number of streams negotiated during SCTP association setup SHOULD
  be 65535, which is the maximum number of streams that can be
  negotiated during the association setup. Implementations with limited
  resources MAY support less than 65535 streams to mitigate resource
  exhaustion when many streams are being used in parallel.

> 
> I hope that is enough of a hint towards browser implementations to read
> the SHOULD as a MUST.
> 
>> However, please note that the ID is in the RFC Editor queue. So it is not
>> just updating an ID. I'm not sure which changes except for the usual AUTH48 changes
>> can be done anymore.
> 
> This is all still fairly new to me, so I don't know how to proceed. If
> the section can't be changed any more, I guess it's not a big deal since
> we at least have discussed it here and have a rough idea on how to
> proceed regarding the W3C WebRTC spec.
The document was finished and submitted to the RFC editor in January 2015.
It is stuck there because of MISREFS.

I guess one can change things with AD approval, but I don't want to go through
the whole WG LC and IETF LC procedure again for this change (which I consider
a clarification).

Best regards
Michael
> 
> Cheers
> Lennart

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email