- From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
- Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 23:53:00 +0100
- To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
- Cc: Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:32 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 7:19 AM, Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> wrote: > On Nov 23, 2013, at 3:51 PM, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com> wrote: > > > > > (adding mmusic mailing list, sorry for cross posting but if we want to progress the draft > > within IETF we have to discuss it in the mmusic mailing list) > > > > the http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-05 > > still allow to specify the number of streams, even if it is optional > > > > if we want to add also max-message-size attribute, also as on optional one > > what about something like this? > > > > a=sctpmap:5000 webrtc-datachannel [streams] [max-message-size] > ... and what is the semantic if max-message-size is not provided? The endpoint > is willing to accept arbitrary large messages? > > I also suggest to rename max-message-size to supported-message-size. > The semantics is that the end-point is willing to accept messages up to > supported-message-size. It does not make a statement about messages larger > than the limit. Calling it max-message-size suggests to me, that messages > larger than the limit can't be handled... > > 1. I'm cool with the idea of negotiating this in the SDP. > 2. I actually think it would be better to have a max message size, since > otherwise we're back in the indeterminate behavior case. The semantic Peter suggested was: You can handle messages up to the limit provided in the SDP. What happens with larger messages is unspecified. For this semantic I suggest the name supported-message-size. If, which is not suggested by Peter as far as I understand, the semantic is You can handle messages up to the limit provided in the SDP. If you send a larger message, I can't handle it. For this semantic max-message-size would be appropriate. No matter which semantic you choose, as a peer I would not send a message larger than the limit since in the first case I don't know if it can be handled, in the second case I'm sure. > 3. The semantics should be that each side just gets to inform the other > side of their value, not that it's negotiated. Sure. Best regards Michael > > -Ekr > >
Received on Saturday, 23 November 2013 22:53:25 UTC