IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!

Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com> Tue, 19 July 2011 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <dzonatas@gmail.com>
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 F2E2021F8ACC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.391
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.391 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.792, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UrjTL610hXcs for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:30:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8ABB21F8ABE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn39 with SMTP id 39so4526317iwn.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=H3VipBgvfnhdqMXy/gapp3oXg9Y8XU5gGUwXZ0g3wWs=; b=m5E3kvyQsbtiUMrMld35R1ZfEeRozfSWzaqmESqkRDc/RoTNv99qsBGhlaru2bXz58 YgFq5lfyvPHiAFAzGdC2LEKJy55gOraraPX3rY8P5zozYn8knCyv7YQhjesnl9ffRjQJ d75yn5B6PkMGeGeNk8IB/T2+7KK2ct3SrQMpI=
Received: by 10.42.169.68 with SMTP id a4mr8414555icz.301.1311089431392; Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:30:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.50] (adsl-70-133-70-225.dsl.scrm01.sbcglobal.net [70.133.70.225]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a9sm6392707icy.6.2011.07.19.08.30.27 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:30:30 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4E25A31A.8010103@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:30:34 -0700
From: Dzonatas Sol <dzonatas@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20110505 Icedove/3.0.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
References: <4E259484.20509@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <4E259484.20509@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] To multiplex or not!
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:30:36 -0000

On 07/19/2011 07:28 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> a) MUST be sent as Individual flows for each component.
>
> b) MUST be multiplexed into a single transport flow.
>
> c) SHOULD be multiplexed into a single transport flow, but the RTCWEB
> peer MUST be able to send them as individual flows.
>
>    

One clarification please, if there are known ranges of A as one 
spectrum, does this WG still consider that multiplexed? IPv6, for 
example, allows us to multiplex in a TCP-less way, simply by fulfillment 
of the flows to more than one individual address. Those addresses could 
constitute one spectrum in a stateful manner, or not.

-- 
--- http://twitter.com/Dzonatas_Sol ---
Web Development, Software Engineering
Ag-Biotech, Virtual Reality, Consultant

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email