Re: [rtcweb] JSEP/WebRTC API Datachannel question

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Mon, 19 May 2014 06:35 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
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 EC7821A02F6 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 23:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.2
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_18=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 L7nkK9JhWjdp for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 18 May 2014 23:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com [173.236.101.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8252B1A00B6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sun, 18 May 2014 23:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pool-71-175-4-197.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([71.175.4.197]:4648 helo=[192.168.1.12]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1WmHAa-0003Fa-PC for rtcweb@ietf.org; Mon, 19 May 2014 01:35:33 -0500
Message-ID: <5379A5D3.5090209@jesup.org>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 02:33:55 -0400
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <534616DC.7090800@nteczone.com> <534CC016.3020901@nteczone.com> <A20898FE-B144-482D-BEF4-AC8AEBE90F9C@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-2YTyOQGd0=V-K=awx+XoMAVvO4ZQA2yNwg7AZSyFRz9A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-2YTyOQGd0=V-K=awx+XoMAVvO4ZQA2yNwg7AZSyFRz9A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050502010504070901060005"
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - r2-chicago.webserversystems.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jesup.org
X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: r2-chicago.webserversystems.com: authenticated_id: randell@jesup.org
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/liMrkIzh3LYTYFITlDG2ncAqL7I
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP/WebRTC API Datachannel question
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: Mon, 19 May 2014 06:35:35 -0000

On 5/19/2014 12:17 AM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> Agree it would be good to make it clear that there is only ever one 
> m=data section; the text you suggest is a good start.

Agree.  And agree we should specify the first createDataChannel() can 
cause a negotiationneeded event.

>
> I don't think we want to add a=recvonly on the data line; it's not 
> clear that that attribute is well-defined for non-RTP media sections.

Agree

>
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) 
> <fluffy@cisco.com <mailto:fluffy@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     On Apr 15, 2014, at 12:13 AM, Christian Groves
>     <Christian.Groves@nteczone.com
>     <mailto:Christian.Groves@nteczone.com>> wrote:
>
>     > I'll take a punt that people were thinking about 2 below when
>     data channel was added. In order to clarify that I propose to add
>     the following text to the JSEP draft to clarify this.
>     >
>     > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-06#section-5.2.1
>     > Replace:
>     > "Lastly, if a data channel has been created, a m= section MUST be
>     >   generated for data. The <media> field MUST be set to
>     "application" and the <proto> field MUST be set to "DTLS/SCTP", as
>     specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], Section 3; the "fmt"
>     value MUST be set to the SCTP port number, as specified in Section
>     4.1."
>     >
>     > With:
>     > /  "Lastly, if createDataChannel has been called a m= section
>     MUST be generated for data. In the case of multiple
>     createDataChannel calls only one m= section is generated. The
>     <media> field MUST be set to "application" and the <proto> field
>     MUST be set to "DTLS/SCTP", as specified in
>     [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], Section 3; the "fmt" value MUST be set
>     to the SCTP port number, as specified in Section 4.1."/
>     >
>     > New text in
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-06#section-5.2.2:
>     > (above last paragraph)
>     > / "If createDataChannel has been called and a m= section has not
>     previously been generated, a m= section MUST be generated for
>     data. In the case of multiple createDataChannel calls only one m=
>     section is generated. The <media> field MUST be set to
>     "application" and the <proto> field MUST be set to "DTLS/SCTP", as
>     specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp], Section 3; the "fmt"
>     value MUST be set to the SCTP port number, as specified in Section
>     4.1.//
>     > //
>     > //If all data channels have been closed, the m= section related
>     to the data channels MUST be marked as recvonly by changing the
>     value of the [RFC3264] directional attribute to "a=recvonly".//"/
>     >
>     > It would also be good to add some text regarding the
>     relationship between a createDataChannel and DCEP
>     DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN I'm not sure if the JSEP draft is the place?
>     >
>     > Also the W3C draft could be updated to indicate the interaction
>     of a createDataChannel with the negotiationneeded event in section
>     5.2 something along the lines of:
>     > /7. For the first creation of a RTCDataChannel object fire a
>     negotiationneeded event at connection./
>     >
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > Christian
>
>     I probably need to think about this more but I think that sounds
>     like a pretty reasonable change. One way or another, JSEP needs to
>     be clear about what needs to happen here.
>

-- 
Randell Jesup -- rjesup a t mozilla d o t com