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: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 16:41:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0tg0cigz4RfdZy+E1NAWENF=zySTu46C6OGt14P-1JVw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
I don't really care about

a=fmtp:5000 max-size=9999
a=fmtp:5001 max-size=1234

but I am concerned about the future possibility of

a=fmtp:5000 max-size=9999;num-qbits=78;spin=-1/2

vs

a=max=size:9999
a=num-qbits:78
a=spin:-1/2

since, as I see it, defining a new SDP attribute is more complicated than a
new fmtp param.


On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 26 November 2013 16:19, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
> > I think there are benefits in using fmtp as a more general mechanism for
> > indicating attributes for the SCTP association (so that we don't have to
> > rehash this the next time we need to signal some parameter), but I would
> be
> > fine with a=max-size as well.
>
>
> Not that I care much about whether this is a=fmtp:5000 max-size or
> just a=max-size, but I'm not sure that there's an appreciable
> difference between the two in this case.  Superficially at least, the
> more complex option is fmtp, and that might be justifiable if
> a=fmtp:5001 could have a different maximum.  Isn't a more direct
> approach sensible in the absence of a use case for the alternative?
>
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2013 00:42:17 UTC

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