IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Amount of streams supported for data channels

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Sat, 28 April 2018 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
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 F20D91273E2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 15:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 KpVGtQBC20w2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 15:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp121.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (smtp121.iad3a.emailsrvr.com [173.203.187.121]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7505A126C26 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 15:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp16.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp16.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 2D4F659F0; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:44:35 -0400 (EDT)
X-Auth-ID: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: by smtp16.relay.iad3a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: fluffy-AT-iii.ca) with ESMTPSA id D14CB1704; Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:44:34 -0400 (EDT)
X-Sender-Id: fluffy@iii.ca
Received: from [10.1.3.91] (S0106004268479ae3.cg.shawcable.net [70.77.44.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:587 (trex/5.7.12); Sat, 28 Apr 2018 18:44:35 -0400
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0E8F2551-1E78-48BB-B7FA-52F6F1AB0894"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <08aec6ec-62ce-a1e4-7781-06d50f5f66f5@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2018 16:44:33 -0600
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <614B5FC9-8FBD-4AF8-A4EC-BE98E31F37DD@iii.ca>
References: <08aec6ec-62ce-a1e4-7781-06d50f5f66f5@gmail.com>
To: Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/s08UAE1-byZAYE41yWQ4WCJBnus>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Amount of streams supported for data channels
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 28 Apr 2018 22:44:40 -0000


> On Apr 11, 2018, at 6:08 AM, Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Is there any reason why it needs to be a SHOULD? Could we make this a MUST?

Yes … when the WG was discussing this the thing that came up was WebRTC devices that are doing IoT stuff often will not have enough memory to do the state for 65k of them. So I don’t think we should require 65k data connections for all uses of rtcweb but theses devices are unlikely to be using the JS API so the question of what to do there is different.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email