Re: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-03

Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> Tue, 04 March 2014 17:56 UTC

Return-Path: <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACEF61A0295 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:56:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.235
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.235 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=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 cBOwbz5dAPyS for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe14:43:76:96:62:64]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EBF1A028C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 09:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.89]) by qmta07.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ZS3t1n0071vXlb857Vwjjh; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:56:43 +0000
Received: from dhcp-a663.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.166.99]) by omta17.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id ZVua1n0112904qf3dVudK7; Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:54:41 +0000
Message-ID: <5316135A.1010405@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:54:34 +0000
From: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <530B740E.4090707@ericsson.com> <B163D4A9-AC33-454B-8F93-CC619AFB7A6F@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <B163D4A9-AC33-454B-8F93-CC619AFB7A6F@lurchi.franken.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1393955803; bh=kzAvfpek24srRphR+/JFpZh3H7ouWGtAAauuU/FXRIo=; h=Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:Subject: Content-Type; b=RjfNCUGeA+PNkhdg9C5q2GzB0JYjI6+jDvE30HpxZ3/90aw2FjgehKWrlrijGOunY QRljyOXxTjBuh4k2yy83VTGEfZVBe9ri2hYKgHwE/NxD241yIxenp6sCrMiSZabwcq 5WksABXkKsoBnv7n8CE84n8BY75cJTqoALN5Buu2MJExjm03FcLszt7E/5gzgQsau6 w06aHYweVUBzIbj2sSiQsTNzD1Nx81EfX8jpR7Nui5+Llq5SBY5LhdYh/+JBrEHU4B QPqzGKzHapDTUyEgykuZ2csByIh0B/JeBCyfDoUyjMcFkEf6+FQXX41K1TpnmTDQdr GjL+px3AzTZGA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/lEFdsYrrxAe0nYlLYk2btZCfbw8
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Review comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-protocol-03
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: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 17:56:49 -0000

On 2/25/14 5:07 PM, Michael Tuexen wrote:

>> 2. Section 4:
>>
>> The method
>>    used to determine which side uses odd or even is based on the
>>    underlying DTLS connection role when used in WebRTC, with the side
>>    acting as the DTLS client using even stream identifiers.
>>
>> Isn't this unnecessary using the vague word of WebRTC instead of simply
>> pointing to the DTLS roles of the established data channel?
> The point is that in the WebRTC you use DCEP/SCTP/DTLS/UDP and therefore
> you can refer to the DTLS role. However, you could use DCEP/SCTP/IP
> or DCEP/SCTP/UDP/IP or DCEP/SCTP over something not involving DTLS.
> In that case DTLS is not used and you can not refer to the DTLS role.
> That is why the restriction is used.

So data channels could work over SCTP/IP or SCTP/UDP/IP, but in fact 
can't solely because the choice of even/odd role is dependent on DTLS 
connection role?

Couldn't you find a way to choose the even/odd role based solely on the 
SCTP layer and the SDP? Then data channels could be used over those 
other stacks.

	Thanks,
	Paul