- From: Michael Tuexen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:30:35 +0100
- To: Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se>
- Cc: public-webrtc@w3.org
On Jan 24, 2014, at 10:12 AM, Gunnar Hellstrom <gunnar.hellstrom@omnitor.se> wrote: > On 2014-01-24 07:48, Adam Bergkvist wrote: >> On 2014-01-09 11:39, Michael Tuexen wrote: >>> I just realise that maxRetransmitTime, since this time does not limit the time spent >>> on retransmissions, but it limits the lifetime of the message. So a name lime >>> maxLifeTime or so makes more sense. >> >> In this case, maxLifeTime seem like a more descriptive name. >> >> I'll edit that into the spec if no one has any strong objections. >> >> /Adam >> > It is still a parameter for the transport layer, right? Correct. > So, it means: If this message is not successfully transmitted within the maxLifeTime time interval, then it may be dropped from the transmission queue. Correct. > > And it is not an application level parameter. > So it does not mean for the receiver: "Do not use this message after the maxLifeTime has expired" The receiver doesn't know about this value. > > If you agree, please make that distinction clear in your edit. ... by using something like "... or set a time during which transmissions and retransmissions are allowed (maxLifeTime)". Best regards Michael > > /Gunnar > >
Received on Friday, 24 January 2014 09:31:05 UTC