- From: Ejzak, Richard P (Richard) <richard.ejzak@alcatel-lucent.com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 16:12:44 +0000
- To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 9/11/2012 9:01 AM Randell Jesup wrote: > My proposal for the SDP opens the chance at the IETF level to specify > any higher-level protocol to run over SCTP (or SCTP-DTLS). The separate > issue in the W3C context is if more than one association can exist per > PeerConnection (no unless option 3 is taken), and if so how it's > specified - and how it interacts with the JS app - random protocol > support would likely require exposing the majority of the SCTP API to JS. It should not be necessary to support multiple associations to support multiple protocols. Each channel should be able to have its own protocol. It would be really unfortunate if any extensibility mechanism for Data Channels to support (at least a limited class of) additional protocols required browser extensions. Agreed that random (or completely general) protocol support requires exposing the SCTP API, but I would be happy with supporting "many common" protocols (even in restricted modes); with the ones I gave as good examples. Richard
Received on Tuesday, 11 September 2012 16:13:32 UTC