- From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
- Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 21:28:39 +0000
- To: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJrXDUEsvhbj502dTbNMYHzhXx2UmLQR4VOAcMwr3Ru4nvuzJg@mail.gmail.com>
At TPAC (2014), we dicussed the possibility of an "SCTP doohickey". This
would be able to answer the following questions to the JS:
- What is the max message size for the data channel?
- Which DtlsTransport are the data channels going over?
- Which IceTransport are the data channels going over?
For that, I propose we add:
interface RTCSctpTransport {
readonly attribute RTCDtlsTransport transport;
unsigned int maxMessageSize;
};
partial interface RTCDataChannel {
// null until negotiation of the transport is complete
readonly attributed RTCSctpTransport? transport;
};
Which can be used like this:
// What is the max message size I can use?
var dc = pc.createDataChannel();
dc.transport.maxMessageSize;
// What DTLS transport is my data going over?
dc.transport.transport; // dtls
// What ICE transport is my data going over?
pc.transport.transport.transport; // ice
That last bit is slightly ugly, and if it mattered enough, we could make it
something like:
dc.transport.dtls;
dc.transport.ice;
But I don't think it's worth it to do so.
Now, I do have a question to ask the group: Should we also have
RTCPeerConnection.getDataTransport()? It seems like it would only be
useful to have one if we can have a data transport without having a data
channel, and that doesn't seem very useful to me. Is there a worthwhile
use case?
Received on Monday, 3 November 2014 21:29:07 UTC