[rtcweb] Lower-overhead protocol variations

Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> Wed, 20 February 2013 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F4021F8623 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:33:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.517
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.517 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.082, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E7iMxIN-nLtc for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:33:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from r2-chicago.webserversystems.com (r2-chicago.webserversystems.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F41621F85F3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pool-98-111-140-34.phlapa.fios.verizon.net ([]:3477 helo=[]) by r2-chicago.webserversystems.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <randell-ietf@jesup.org>) id 1U8HIF-0000Aw-UZ; Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:33:36 -0600
Message-ID: <512540A3.3090008@jesup.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:31:15 -0500
From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Subject: [rtcweb] Lower-overhead protocol variations
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 21:33:38 -0000

This is a relevant thread to current discussions:


and continued with subject change in


I'm re-evaluating if the original decision against even/odd was required,
in order to see if we can collapse the current draft 0-RTT proposal
into a single declarative "open" message on a stream with no response or ack
required. Even/odd (perhaps based on a property of the SCTP association?)
would avoid the need for mismatched channel pairs, and thus avoid the need
for the response/ack and the need to send with the in-order bit.

The only hole I've seen so far is that if the return stream isn't
currently within the range of valid streams (i.e. at the far end) there's
no easy way to return an error.  However, we expect to be able to
negotiate additional streams on request, so this may not really matter.

We may need to reserve more initial streams, but the overhead for this is

Perhaps this would address some of the concerns voiced here.  Also,
someone will be posting a use case soon this sort of change will
help.... <jesup waits for the post>

Randell Jesup