Reporting the duplicate TSNs is a SHOULD in the RFC, and using the
duplicate TNSs is a MAY, and in reality I haven't seen an implementation
use it yet. However, it's good for debugging and for stats generation.
Bug: webrtc:12614
Change-Id: I1cc3f86961a8d289708cbf50d98dedfd25077955
Reviewed-on: https://webrtc-review.googlesource.com/c/src/+/219462
Reviewed-by: Florent Castelli <orphis@webrtc.org>
Commit-Queue: Victor Boivie <boivie@webrtc.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#34053}
Adding strong types went a little too far as these two types represent
the same sequence number. A "request sequence number" is a number, that
- when responded to - will be used as "response sequence number".
Having them separate added confusion and just a lot of type-casting.
Bug: webrtc:12614
Change-Id: I4636ea8f2252023a2d5a9b7033763e1978b1812e
Reviewed-on: https://webrtc-review.googlesource.com/c/src/+/214130
Commit-Queue: Victor Boivie <boivie@webrtc.org>
Reviewed-by: Florent Castelli <orphis@webrtc.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#33789}
Quite a large commit, but mostly trivial. It adds all the (in dcSCTP)
supported parameters, error causes and chunks as an object model, with
serializers and deserializers. They are verified with packet captures
where available, that have been captured with Wireshark against a
reference implementation.
This _could_ be split in parameter/ as one commit, error_cause/ in the
following, and chunk/ as the third, but as each chunk/parameter is
completely isolated from the other, reviewing it should be linear with
the number of chunks/parameters and having them in more commits wouldn't
change that, taken all those three commits into account.
Bug: webrtc:12614
Change-Id: Ie83c9a22cae6e3a39e35ef26fd532837a6387a08
Reviewed-on: https://webrtc-review.googlesource.com/c/src/+/213347
Commit-Queue: Victor Boivie <boivie@webrtc.org>
Reviewed-by: Tommi <tommi@webrtc.org>
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#33625}
