- From: Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 01:38:08 -0400
- To: public-webrtc@w3.org
On 4/1/2013 4:24 PM, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 1 April 2013 12:58, Randell Jesup <randell-ietf@jesup.org> wrote: > >>> 'preset' doesn't sound right, maybe you could have 'inlineOpen' >>> (default: true) to convey what is really happening here. >> >> externallyNegotiated (default: false)? Not great, but "inlineOpen" will be >> pretty meaningless to most developers who probably could care less if >> there's an in-band open message for a channel (whether externally negotiated >> or not) - or even know there's an in-band message. Then again, 99% of >> developers don't need to care about this anyways. > Yes, I didn't get a warm fuzzy from my suggested name either, but you > are right about the impact being relatively low. > > Other ideas: "announceSettings" (default: true), "prearranged" > (default: false), "thisIsNotATest" (default: "yesItIs"). I suggest one of "prearranged", or "externallyNegotiated" (both default: false). I'd lean towards "prearranged", though it's not 100% correct. >> Unsigned short has been the type in the protocol fields since the first >> draft (like a year). Perhaps a silly optimization, though I think if you >> want partial reliability with >64K resends, or >64 seconds of retry that you >> *really* want reliable transmission (perhaps unordered, but reliable). If >> we want to change it, now's the time, since we're breaking binary >> compatibility in FF with my landing today anyways. > Well, you'll be accepting a JS number, so it doesn't really matter > what the spec says. We're not going to allow 3.5 retries though :-) or 1e25. So: given choices of 16 bit unsigned, 32-bit unsigned or (seriously?) 64-bit unsigned, what do people want? As I mentioned, I see little need for >16bit unsigned (while not being reliable). Yes, we'll be getting a JS number, but we can a) inform the developer of the limits, and b) throw an error of some sort, *if* we think that's useful (quite possibly not). -- Randell Jesup randell-ietf@jesup.org
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2013 05:40:12 UTC