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 08:41:11 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO9WHOv2PayxQahyv1-pyYL0x5KaPcpTqSK2rfRxeNjCg@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>
And in case it's not obvious, there probably also needs to be a way to
interrogate the PC to find the current remote value so that the
application can chunk if it wants.

-Ekr



On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> 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 16:42:20 UTC

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