W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > September 2011

Re: PeerConnection Data Channel

From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:48:29 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0GtK3mqZgu98tHXESeaswva_ahA1wAS15pgMAHiaW=8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote:

> On 09/07/11 14:20, Stefan HÃ¥kansson LK wrote:
>
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> thanks for a quick response.
>>
>> I think our different views somewhat comes from that I tend to view the
>> data channel as "a peer-to-peer" version of WebSocket, while (I think) you
>> view it more as another stream, this one just has no audio or video.
>>
> Hmmm....
> if we want to treat data as "just another stream" (something I'm not sure
> we want), at what point does it make sense to regard a data stream as a
> track inside a MediaStream, and not a stream?
>
> If MediaStream = CNAME and track = SSRC for media, the fit might be
> uncomfortable, since we need to carry something similar in whatever encoding
> we use for the data.


> This is not a proposal I'm advocating, it's an idea I toss out.
>

Yes, I considered this as well. I decided that the core MediaStream CNAME
notion, i.e. for synchronization, doesn't make sense for data, although we
do need something like SSRC for a demux point. Therefore I don't think a
DataTrack concept within a MediaStream makes sense, and while we could have
a single DataStream with multiple DataTracks, I think it's better to just
have multiple DataStreams.
Received on Thursday, 8 September 2011 03:49:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 8 September 2011 03:49:15 GMT