- 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