W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Proposal: offerDataChannel in RTCOfferOptions

From: Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:08:02 -0400
Message-ID: <554020E2.4040606@mozilla.com>
To: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
CC: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Benjamin Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>, "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On 4/28/15 6:14 PM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
> 2015-04-28 18:51 GMT+02:00 Jan-Ivar Bruaroey <jib@mozilla.com>:
>> Also, shouldn't it be offerToReceiveDataChannel?
> AFAIK there is no "a=recvonly" for DataChannels.

Sure, but it's not 1-1 offerToReceiveVideo/Only/. (e.g. 
pc.addTrack(video) + createOffer({ offerToReceiveVideo:true }) => 
"a=sendrecv". So flags are higher-level. I meant "receive" in the 
broadest sense of "I have no intent to send data your way, but in case 
you intend to send data my way, here's friendlier SDP for that without 
renegotiation, since I'm going first.

>> I thought the idea here was:
>>    offerer: "I don't have a datachannel but I don't mind if you do."
>>    answerer: "I do have a datachannel for you, thanks for asking!"
>> That, or the (near) symmetry may be confusing me about what we're solving.
> I understand it as follows:
> offerer: "I don't want to create a DataChannel right now, but I offer
> it to you right now so we can have it ready now if you want, so we
> avoid renegotiation".

We're on the same page.

.: Jan-Ivar :.
Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2015 00:08:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:43 UTC