Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-04.txt

On 3/6/13 1:08 PM, MARCON, JEROME (JEROME) wrote:
> But then - and given that DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN_RESPONSE no longer exists in this new draft version - I wonder how the peer can reject an incoming DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN message signaling a 'subprotocol' it does not support.
well, it can simply and immediately close (i.e. resetting) the outgoing 
"peer" stream

/Salvatore

>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org]
>> De la part de Salvatore Loreto
>> Envoyé : mercredi 6 mars 2013 11:46
>> À : rtcweb@ietf.org
>> Objet : Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel-04.txt
>>
>> On 3/6/13 11:40 AM, MARCON, JEROME (JEROME) wrote:
>>>>>>> 4. What happens if the SDP Opening Handshake agreed on some
>>>>> data channels using the 'chat' subprotocol, and later on
>> an endpoint
>>>>> creates in-band a new channel with 'file transfer'
>>>>> subprotocol ?
>>>>>
>>>>> When you create a channel, it sends Open on an unused Stream.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> That does not answer to my question, so I reformulate: some
>> time after the initial SDP Opening Handshake, can the
>> DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN message create in-band a data channel with
>> a 'subprotocol' not negotiated by the initial SDP Opening Handshake ?
>> I do think it should be possible to do it in-band
>>
>> However I agree with you that an important side question is
>> if/when that will be also signaled via SDP
>>
>> /Salvatore
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb