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

Re: RTCDataChannel characteristics and failures

From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 19:21:02 +0100
Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <F157CCCD-F9DE-45E7-B152-6FD8F8DF4BC8@lurchi.franken.de>
To: piranna@gmail.com
On Jan 2, 2014, at 1:36 PM, piranna@gmail.com wrote:

> For example, highly coupled realtime tasks like P2P video distribution. You would be interested in have a timeout to don't send info out of time, but also have a max number of retransmits to don't waste bandwidth and try another source.
The source would apply the PR-SCTP policy, right? How does the source know that messages
are abandoned? The socket API for SCTP can provide this information, but how do you know
this in the JS API. Any idea? Who would change another source, since it can't be the source.

Currently SCTP uses an enumeration of policies. To do the above, we would need to
extend it to handle logical ands and ors of policies. That would required some
changes to
https://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctp-prpolicies-00

What do others think?

Best regards
Michael
> 
> Send from my Samsung Galaxy Note II
> 
> El 02/01/2014 09:36, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> escribió:
> On 12/30/2013 12:09 AM, piranna@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > > for some use cases...
> > Any concrete example?
> >
> Application-based fine-grain control of the transmissions.
> 
> When asked for a concrete example, please give a concrete example of an application that needs it.
> 
> It's always possible to send in unreliable mode and implement your own mechanisms for reliability; any extension to the spec needs to be backed with an use case that makes it clear why it's worth changing.
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2014 18:21:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:37 UTC