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

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

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 08:15:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBN93V4suV4p0fbO9EwvQWVhDRNupQra1PFT5s-zYW0E0g@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>, Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
For concreteness, here's what I suggest.

- An SDP attribute which indicates the maximum message size that
  the endpoint is willing to accept. The other side should assume that
  any larger message will be rejected, though there is no requirement
  that it do so (just as there is no requirement to behave in any
  particular way if an unadvertised RTP PT is received).

- If the attribute is not present, the assumption is that there is some
  sensible (small) default that matches the behavior of existing
  browsers. 64k?

- An attribute value of '0' means I will do my best with whatever you
  send me, subject to memory capacity, etc.

- Proposed name: 'max-message-size'

-Ekr



On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 23 November 2013 13:32, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> > 3. The semantics should be that each side just gets to inform the other
> > side of their value, not that it's negotiated.
>
> This is especially important.  "negotiation" here makes zero sense.
>
Received on Sunday, 24 November 2013 16:16:37 UTC

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