W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2013

Re: DataChannels API and external negotiation

From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:38:29 +0200
Cc: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <E629AF4F-FA49-46FE-A677-684F4CC80454@lurchi.franken.de>
To: piranna@gmail.com
On Apr 1, 2013, at 10:15 AM, piranna@gmail.com wrote:

>> /* If either maxRetransmitTime or maxRetransmitNum are set, it's
>>   unreliable, else it's a reliable channel.  If both are set it's an
>>   error.
> 
> I don't think so (except if it's a limitation of SCTP that I didn't
> know, so this message is useless). I think it would make sense to be
> able to set both maxRetransmitTime and maxRetransmitNum at the same
> time, only that since they are maximus limits it would be effective
> the first to be reached.
SCTP allows setting a single PR-SCTP policy packet. Supported ones are
limiting the number of retransmissions and time to live. Not a combination
of both. That is why you are only providing a single PR-SCTP value.

If you want to limit both, you need to define a new PR-SCTP policy. That
policy would also require two parameters (the number of retransmissions and
the time to live in ms) as parameters, not only one as we have currently.

So without defining a new PR-SCTP policy, the above text is correct.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> 
> 
> --
> "Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un
> monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo
> Unix."
>  Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 1 April 2013 09:38:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:33 UTC