Re: [rtcweb] #13: Transport of DATA_CHANNEL_OPEN

[Matthew Kaufman <[e-mail]>]

On 4/25/2013 10:30 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 04/25/2013 07:28 AM, Matthew Kaufman (SKYPE) wrote:
>>
>> It is a much simpler question as there's only a couple of options 
>> left... how about we throw it on the floor? That seems safest to me.
>>
>> I'd still love to hear why it is "needed" though.
>>
>
> The fact that Matthew doesn't want to accept the arguments for why it 
> is needed doesn't seem relevant to me.

Until Randell's message arrived a few hours before yours, there was no 
concise summary of why it might be needed.

Never mind that your personal view as to whether or not to just ignore 
my technical arguments offhand because they're sent by me is hardly 
relevant to the rest of the working group.

>
> I think people have said enough times that they see value in the label 
> concept, and they want some way to carry it. The OPEN message is a 
> simple way to fill that need (and also makes some other aspects of 
> setup simpler than they would otherwise be).
>
>

And as I pointed out in my original message on this topic, which until 
Randell's message was met with silence, the only thing that made sense 
to me was the label field, and yet the label can be null, so might also 
be useless.

Matthew Kaufman