On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Erik Möller wrote:
> Absolutely, that's why the path-MTU attribute was suggested. The ~64k limit
> is an absolute limit though at which sends can be rejected immediately
> without even trying.
Ah, gotcha. I was trying to separate the cases of MTU before
fragmenta
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:25:41 +0200, Lars Eggert
wrote:
Hi,
on a purely managerial level, let me point out that this work is far
beyond the current charter of the HYBI WG. This defines an entirely new
protocol, and will definitely require a charter discussion.
(If there is community/dev
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:21:38 +0200, Mark Frohnmayer
wrote:
TorqueSocket is not in the same category as RakNet or OpenTNL
Ah, sorry I got the names mixed up, I meant to say RakNet/OpenTNL and not
RakNet/TorqueSocket.
I'd recommend doing some real-world testing for max packet size. Back
During the Opera Network Seminar held in Oslo this week I discussed the
possible addition of a new wsd: URL scheme to WebSockets that would allow
relaxing the packet resends and enable demanding real-time applications to
be written. I'd like to summarize some of the conclusions a few of us ca
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Erik Möller wrote:
> Regarding the discussions on at what level the API of a UDP-WebSocket should
> be: One of the most important aspects to remember are that for this to be
> interesting to application developers we need all the browser vendors to
> support this
On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 01:07:48 +0200, Mark Frohnmayer
wrote:
Glad to see this discussion rolling! For what it's worth, the Torque
Sockets design effort was to take a stab at answering this question --
what is the least-common-denominator "webby" API/protocol that's
sufficiently useful to be a
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Mark Frohnmayer
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, wrote:
> > On 2 Jun 2010, at 00:07, Mark Frohnmayer wrote:
> >> A single UDP socket can host multiple connections (indexed by packet
> >> source address), so even a modest limit on actual number of sockets
>
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:35 PM, wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2010, at 00:07, Mark Frohnmayer wrote:
>> A single UDP socket can host multiple connections (indexed by packet
>> source address), so even a modest limit on actual number of sockets
>> wouldn't be a big impediment.
>
> Um, NAT?
You would want to
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Mark Frohnmayer
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Erik Möller wrote:
>> So, what would the minimal set of limitations be to make a "UDP WebSocket"
>> browser-safe?
>>
>> -No listen sockets
>
> Only feedback here would be I think p2p should be looked at in th
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Erik Möller wrote:
>
> I was hoping to be able to avoid looking at what the interfaces of a high vs
> low level option would look like this early on in the discussions, but
> perhaps we need to do just that; look at Torque, RakNet etc and find a least
> common denom
10 matches
Mail list logo
