Re: [rtcweb] Some language on "prioritization"

[Simon Perreault <[e-mail]>]

Le 2014-04-21 08:13, Karl Stahl a écrit :
> 1) AVOIDING SELF DESTRUCTING PRIORITAZATION FROM FILE TRANSFER IN DATA
> CHANNEL
> 
> Simon,
> 
> I saw you are an author of TURN-TCP RFC6062. Doesn't that RFC allow a 
> webrtc file transfer channel (separate from the rtcweb data channel) 
> to be created, using TLS file transfer P2P? ICE/STUN/TURN would set 
> it up, NOT BUNDLED with chunk data and RTP media.

RFC6062 knows nothing about WebRTC or TLS inside the peer connection
payload. So it doesn't explicitly "allow" what you suggest. But I guess
it doesn't prevent it either. It doesn't care.

> Freeing the current rtcweb data channel from file transfer would remedy 
> the self destruction of prioritization/QoS for data chunks and RTP media 
> as explained in (A), (B) and (C) below.
> 
> I also think it would be much better for a web programmer to have a 
> separate p2p file transfer channel (that is not and cannot be prioritized) 
> than pouring files into the data channel.

Why do you think using a separate channel would eliminate the issue of
prioritization? We would end up with multiple channels contending for
the same bandwidth. You have just moved the problem one level up. And
made things needlessly more complex, IMHO.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca