- From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2017 22:53:42 +0000
- To: Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com>
- Cc: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, public-webrtc <public-webrtc@w3.org>
FWIW: I think that's a great idea! Silvia. On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Lennart Grahl <lennart.grahl@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey everyone, I would like to add a wish for WebRTC-NV: > > As you may have heard, we have added the possibility to send large data > channel messages to Firefox and handle them correctly when receiving > (obeying SCTP's EOR flag to not violate message integrity). > But the key issue hasn't been addressed which is that the data channel > API is too high level for sending large messages. We need a way to (at > least optionally) send and receive data channel messages in chunks, so > large messages can be exchanged without creating enormous backpressure > for both peers. The current API forces every application that wants to > transfer large amounts of data into rolling their own > fragmentation/reassembly implementation. That is annoying and entirely > unnecessary as this is done on top of a transport protocol that is > already able to do fragmentation/reassembly easily and probably more > efficiently- > > Currently, the RTCQuicStream API is being developed for the ORTC spec > (https://github.com/w3c/ortc/pull/785) with buffering aspects in mind. > Maybe we can take a few ideas regarding the buffering aspect of the API > from there (even though this is a byte stream and data channels exchange > datagrams). I already have a few ideas regarding the API to send/receive > in chunks, so feel free to ping me. > > Cheers > Lennart > > > On 07.11.2017 08:24, Harald Alvestrand wrote: >> I've tried to put together my thinking about what I think we should try >> to achieve with WebRTC-NV. >> >> Chiefly, I've tried to look for the principles: What we should keep on >> doing, what we should make it possible to live without, and what we >> should extend further. >> >> I've enclosed it in PDF. It looked prettier that way. Comments can also >> be made here: >> >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pU4YR0hbH2IhE-s8_CggRdADps_9rambnfsOz3VH_ew/edit?usp=sharing >> >> Harald >> >
Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2017 22:54:33 UTC