W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > February 2014

Re: RTCDataChannel characteristics and failures -API description - comment to the 20140127 version

From: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:40:57 +0100
Message-ID: <52F14249.4020606@omnitor.se>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com>
CC: Web-rtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 2014-02-04 18:41, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 03:52, Adam Bergkvist <adam.bergkvist@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> Does the silence mean that people agree and are fine with these changes
>> going into the spec? If anyone have any comments or suggestions, please
>> comment.
> Please don't assume silence == acceptance.  I'd prefer silence ==
> ambivalence, or maybe silence == no thanks.
> The proposed text is correct in part and too specific elsewhere.  I
> agree with the note that reliable is instead equated with maximum
> retry {count + time}.  I don't agree with setting specific numbers on
> this, unless they are minimum requirements for support.
A follow-up question:

If an application opens a data channel and requests the unreliable type 
with maximum 7 retries.
And it turns out that the reliable type by default makes maximum 5 retries.

Will the channel establishment then accept to extend to 7 retries?
Or what will happen?

It looks a bit strange to have an unreliable channel that is more 
reliable than the reliable one.
But without documentation about the default retries for the reliable 
channel this situation might very well happen because the application 
programmer does not know the figure.

If it is agreed that it is illogical to set the unreliable channel more 
reliable than the reliable one, an addition to the API could say:
"If the MaxRetries parameter is higher than the default maximum number 
of retries used for reliable channels, the channel will use the default 
number, but in other aspects perform as an unreliable channel (e.g. no 
channel disconnect after exceeded number of retries)."

That would meet your view that the proposed text had too much detail, 
but it covers a logical gap in the API specification.

Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2014 19:41:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:38 UTC