Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Sat, 20 April 2013 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 1D2A921F892B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qHYRi7R4oROq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s19.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s19.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.158]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0F1B21F8900 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:24:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-W125 ([65.55.111.136]) by blu0-omc4-s19.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:24:25 -0700
X-EIP: [3YmUfoZIItAtRrgBiicEhYxTz3qyzCFi]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-W125B5C90F48C0FC1D78CF7B93C90@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_9a1c26be-c03f-46c7-93bf-6fc3e22e5d84_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:24:25 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-W553251969AB9261A1083D593C90@phx.gbl>
References: <066.3120a55540cacaa74ee5fda0b5273a48@trac.tools.ietf.org>, , <516CE3EC.2050804@jesup.org>, , <CABkgnnVaTOLa-hs7AtEgaTk7eq00bEkCY+_8L96Y8pooqybBxA@mail.gmail.com>, , <CAJrXDUFgxLT3-1HehKbg5byzifFi4Obe3XW9G4sbWRbnU+Hi1A@mail.gmail.com>, , <CABkgnnXr85LZyJiSF+ok2KMS_xQnS0CE4VBq4PvEhBBscn2QZQ@mail.gmail.com>, , <516F1AF9.2080301@alvestrand.no>, , <CABkgnnVtUjk4jSDVioxQnrt-b69Hx0nZLefs7tpEzETSmLXeNA@mail.gmail.com>, , <516F9A5A.6080402@alvestrand.no>, , <CABkgnnWrAMnm5fTWCNA1jqC_8Js0a6ewfSkvni4xg0E6rXdCtA@mail.gmail.com>, , <5170247F.4090908@alvestrand.no>, , <CABkgnnXU4HeJT-QwDcJ5NTvr72gZXxXi5zHFkQjJS__UXqzvtQ@mail.gmail.com>, , <206CB075-6754-4578-B623-866E410DACCC@lurchi.franken.de>, , <CABkgnnUCXUH+0a+F1LVQVrtL=Q65HGgsdT-oBBF++zSVR4OhWw@mail.gmail.com>, , <5171734E.3050300@jesup.org>, , <CABkgnnW0V7Sjx27Ff7CHANLqPifRLMDNatqD=VgPOB+d-iR+4A@mail.gmail.com>, , <CAJrXDUGQyuKA_DxSOPfsWqCnkSRd=_Qzkir+r0-27oprCz6=sw@mail.gmail.com>, <BLU169-W71259E99EC38724B1682D293C90@phx.gbl>, , <5172091A.5040205@jesup.org>, <BLU 169-W553 251969AB9261A1083D593C90@phx.gbl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Apr 2013 17:24:25.0356 (UTC) FILETIME=[E7A93CC0:01CE3DEB]
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN
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: Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:24:27 -0000

(retransmitted to fix a cut-and-paste error).  Randell said:


    "Well, if we do decide to timeout or size-out buffering of unordered
    early data, I wouldn't do so quickly.  My example for this would be
    a data-only application opening an channel just as it's fading out
    of WiFi/cell coverage... If you want opens to timeout, that should be part    of how Open works (partial-reliable with a max time), not    indirectly-in-some-edge-cases like this."
 
[BA] I agree that it makes sense to be explicit about the transport properties desired for OPEN. There is a tradeoff between a timeout/size-out of unordered early data and the amount of "reliability" that the OPEN will really have.    For example, if the timeout is more than one and less than 3 RTOinitial, then you are effectively only allowing for the OPEN to be retransmitted once; between 3 and 7 RTOinitial, twice; between 7 and 15 RTOinitial, three times, etc.  The timeout also limits the amount of time that the endpoint can be out of coverage in the case you gave. In terms of buffering, there are similar implications.  The amount of buffer allocated will determine how many times the OPEN can be retransmitted.  To be resilient, I wouldn't recommend a max time of less than 15 seconds, and one could argue for 30 seconds or more (e.g. the potential effect of routing transients).