IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01.txt

Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com> Tue, 24 March 2015 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <sperreault@jive.com>
X-Original-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: avt@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00B271A1B83 for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:58:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cemxipZ1VqEA for <avt@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-f175.google.com (mail-ob0-f175.google.com [209.85.214.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4332F1A1B84 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by obcjt1 with SMTP id jt1so5315019obc.2 for <avt@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=THjJlGk3LI0M1F5epdrOEujNTapYXshpSLoZQwTNLJY=; b=eZ5nV401LJY+9TkJiS/xGIOifAfLmXjutxmIizhIfimr2I+SD9bvDYZ7PZjCVxCAVM mz97jE7EBgH6LAt9mtgK+1HReiEx40zuz1fbIE+aaiEjhKmnV4j6AK88l1pEkkQJx5HV zIxdzJwnEr710OHX2M8f7x9OucOiij55RukoRhFRE6IbymFY1zW0dDMrIv4X/fgdi3JE e0THmN6O3uozUslzIL0x0FyDF6TXi93g6/mw2AmPks3eAYJbiKdRoj+aI4AQXUsbEJap 668sSwZw573RQZkyZtZjT86KMR1qITm/9jFhJaUxij9EWagRxX0YjoptH6SOQgFiCm2X 3+4Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnlLS4ax8JQPmCCEOoeKxKc3/zPHMsCEGaXGIX8SHPNlLQrcA3cmLBhrwGT9X4Df56THnyn
X-Received: by 10.60.102.41 with SMTP id fl9mr4945662oeb.33.1427234319768; Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:58:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-a37f.meeting.ietf.org (dhcp-a37f.meeting.ietf.org. [31.133.163.127]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z184sm445715oie.0.2015.03.24.14.58.38 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Mar 2015 14:58:38 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5511DE0C.6020407@jive.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 16:58:36 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, avt@ietf.org, draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes@tools.ietf.org
References: <20150324212925.29176.38583.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <5511DBDC.3090907@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <5511DBDC.3090907@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/avt/zCRhfT6uY331M7H2eAaHjX_fj3I>
Subject: Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01.txt
X-BeenThere: avt@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Audio/Video Transport Core Maintenance <avt.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/avt/>
List-Post: <mailto:avt@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt>, <mailto:avt-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 21:58:45 -0000

Le 2015-03-24 16:49, Magnus Westerlund a écrit :
> I really wonder if the SCTP over UDP allocation should be in this draft.
> I definitely don't think the motivation that is present in Section 1.2
> is reason for this document to perform an allocation.
> 
> I think that allocation should happen at the time when there actually
> are consensus on using SCTP over UDP in a setting which requires
> demultiplexing with STUN etc. Currently we appear to be missing quite a
> bit of glue between SCTP over UDP (RFC6951) and using ICE to establish
> that UDP flow for it.
> 
> And based on the discussion in the WG today, I think there is no
> consensus for this part, thus I would like you to remove it until a
> consensus for including this in this document exists.

I believe Marc did this on purpose to focus the discussion on this
single stupid thing and ensure the core matter gets accepted smoothly.
So far he's winning.

Simon

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email