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

Re: Should we put the SCTP max message size in the SDP?

From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:16:34 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEEb8yohTXZR5vOM8nu11sP5KOkOy+iaj1_x+N9MXU94A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Yes, we agreed to forego putting streams in the SDP.  I'm sure I got the
syntax of the SDP wrong.  Yours looks better.


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:51 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> I like the idea, but I'm not sure the syntax in
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-04 can express this.
>
> The current a=sctpmap is
>
> a=sctpmap:5000 webrtc-datachannel [streams]
>
> although IIRC we agreed to forego the whole streams negotiation thing.
>
> So we would need something like a=fmtp:5000 max-message-size=1000000.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>wrote:
>
>> This is probably going to sound strange coming from me, but I think it
>> might be a better idea to put the SCTP max message size in the SDP.
>>
>> I'm still OK with having an in-band message (as we discussed during TPAC)
>> to swap the SCTP max message between endpoints, but I was thinking about it
>> a little more and realized that it does involve some extra edge cases and a
>> bit of possible latency.  It would be nice if we could do a handshake
>> earlier on.... and then I realized we can because we can just put it in the
>> SDP where we already do a handshake well ahead of time.
>>
>> Something like:
>>
>> a=sctpmap:5000 max-message-size 1000000
>>
>>
>> Obviously I'm not a big fan of stuffing lots of stuff into SDP, but I
>> think this is very minimal and is a more simple solution.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
>
Received on Friday, 22 November 2013 23:17:42 UTC

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