- From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:28:21 -0500
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 2/28/2012 4:18 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
> On 02/28/2012 06:36 PM, Randell Jesup wrote:
[SNIP]
>> Sorry.
>
> argh. was fun while it lasted :-)
> second suggestion is to have the first message contain the label and
> flags.....
Yup. My rough plan was:
First message on a stream (or first after a reset of the stream):
(pseudo-structure)
{
CHANNEL_OPEN,
flags, // reliable, unreliable, out-of-order, partially-reliable
(and type), etc
pr_value, // partially-reliable
DOMString label,
}
and response:
{
CHANNEL_OPENED,
forward_stream_id, // optional
}
This assumes we can avoid stream number glare by using an even/odd
differentiation. If we can't or don't want to, we can include in the
response the forward channel it's responding to (it would come in on the
reverse channel for that bidirectional pair). This allows us to avoid
stream ID glare by never requiring the bidirectional pair have the same
stream number.
--
Randell Jesup
randell-ietf@jesup.org
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 23:30:31 UTC