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

Re: [Bug 23832] New: Requiring that negotiated channels be created on the receiver before any data can be received is problematic for some use cases

From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 06:35:42 +0100
Message-ID: <528AF8AE.1080102@alvestrand.no>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
CC: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 11/18/2013 10:47 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 18 November 2013 12:59, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:
>> The reliable information seems to be the channel number (stream ID).
> The ordered/unordered flag is also reliably present.
>
>> The part I don't understand: If you want this mode of open to be
>> reliable, why isn't it acceptable to send an open message?
> I think that we've done that part to death already, haven't we?
Not in this context.

The premise of externally negotiated channels (as far as I understand
it) has been that if both sides know precisely what they want, they
shouldn't need to send the same information in-band; I'm not sure what
the premise of "one side sets up the channel and the other side accepts
it" is.

In particular, if one side sets up two channels and starts sending data,
I don't see how the other side can tell which is which - so this is only
useful in scenarios where there is only one data channel, and in
scenarios where the receiving side does not care which is which.

Again, I'm searching for the justification for making the model more
complex in order to save an OPEN message.





-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2013 05:36:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:36 UTC