- From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
- Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:17:23 +0200
- To: Tim Panton <thp@westhawk.co.uk>
- Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Randall Stewart <rrs@lakerest.net>, Salvatore Loreto <salvatore.loreto@ericsson.com>
On Apr 23, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Tim Panton wrote: > > On 23 Apr 2012, at 17:01, Randell Jesup wrote: > >> In going over the details for the DataChannel minor protocol and how it works over SCTP, we realized we'll need a 3-way handshake instead of a 2-way. The reason is that an OPEN_RESPONSE sent ordered followed by a data message sent unordered would allow the data message to come in at the other end before the open response, and since we don't know the input-stream -> output-stream mapping until we get the OPEN_RESPONSE, we might not know what to do with it. So we plan to add an ACK message to the protocol to provide the 3-way handshake. >> > .... > >> It seems to me that forcing in-order delivery until the handshake is complete is simpler for the user, and only rarely has any impact on the application. The exception might be if you wanted to dump a bunch of sends that were reliable and out-of-order immediately on creation of the channel - and I don't see it being a major issue there - and you can still wait on onopen if you want. >> >> Recap: #2 is slightly closer to how WebSockets works (though anything coded for WebSockets' onopen behavior would still work in #1), and #2 avoids potential additional buffering in the stack if the OPEN/OPEN_RESPONSE is lost. (If it's not lost, there's really no extra buffering occurring, except maybe in the rare case where we need to increase the maximum number of simultaneous streams.) >> >> Opinions? > > > Is there any way that the handshake can fail ? If there is, then the apis are significantly different in the way that they report that failure. > (Since you don't mention a matching NACK I guess this isn't an issue). > > A downside of #2 is we need to define what order data gets sent in this case: > > temp = peer.createDataChannel(..) > temp.data_to_send = "I want to send a magic hello string"; > temp.onopen = function() { > temp.send(temp.data_to_send); > }; > temp.send("I want to send normal activity"); > temp.close(); > temp = null; I missed that question... I would guess that "I want to send normal activity" will be sent (and received) before "I want to send a magic hello string". Not what the user wants, I guess. Best regards Michael > > Tim. > > > Tim Panton - Web/VoIP consultant and implementor > www.westhawk.co.uk > > > > >
Received on Monday, 23 April 2012 20:17:48 UTC