Re: A small proposal to cleanup DataChannel construction.

[RR] see inline
> Peter Thatcher <mailto:pthatcher@google.com>
> April 23, 2014 at 5:22 PM
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Robin Raymond <robin@hookflash.com 
> <mailto:robin@hookflash.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     WebRTC 1.0 which only uses data channel defines the init
>     properties as follows:
>
>     dictionary RTCDataChannelInit {
>       boolean ordered
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#widl-RTCDataChannelInit-ordered> = true;
>     unsigned short?maxRetransmitTime
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#widl-RTCDataChannelInit-maxRetransmitTime>
>     = null;
>       unsigned short? maxRetransmits
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#widl-RTCDataChannelInit-maxRetransmits>
>     = null;
>       DOMString protocol
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#widl-RTCDataChannelInit-protocol> = "";
>       boolean negotiated
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#widl-RTCDataChannelInit-negotiated>
>     = false;
>       unsigned short? id
>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/webrtc/#widl-RTCDataChannelInit-id> = null;
>     };
>
>     I suggest we "borrow" the parameter definition 'as is' unless
>     there's reason to not do it.
>
> ​
> I agree.  Isn't that what we've done already?​

[RR] We did, but perhaps it's from an older spec. We had odd things in 
ours like "preset" and "stream". So I was puzzled.
>
>     [...]
>
>
> ​Yes, we do, for the same reasons we wanted it for 1.0, and because we 
> want 1.0 parity.
>
> And the answer is the same as for 1.0:  There is 1 bidirectional data 
> channel per id.  ​If you both pick 30, then that's fine, each side 
> only sees one channel.  I don't remember what the spec says about 
> ondatachannel firing.  I'm hoping it says that if you've picked id 30 
> then it would never fire with id 30.  But it might say otherwise, and 
> we should probably do the same as what it says.  Either way isn't that 
> big of a problem, because presumably if you're picking your own id and 
> using negotiated=false, then you're using the power tools and know 
> what you're getting into.  I think most people will either use the 
> defaults or use negotiated=true.

[RR] I'm fine with the rules so long as they are clear an unambiguous. 
Who would have the answers to clarify some of these ambiguous situations?
>
>
>     Likewise if a client uses id of "50" and creates a data channel,
>     and re-uses the same id of "50" and creates another data channel,
>     do the objects points to the same data channel or is that an
>     error? What if a pending "ondatachannel" was going to event but we
>     created "50" first? This id thing creates a bit of ambiguity in my
>     mind for behavior and it needs clear definition.
>
>
> ​I believe it's an error to pick a used id.  If you pick 30 twice or 
> you pick 30 and the system randomly picks 30, you get an error.  ​ But 
> we should check to make sure we do the same as the 1.0 spec.  Again, 
> if you're mixing picking ids and letting the system, you're using the 
> power tools and should know what you're getting into.
> ​

[RR] Right, it should be the same. Just need some clarity on these things...
>
> [...]