Re: [bfcpbis] [art] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

[trimming mailing lists]

Thanks! That's a good catch. It's not really the same problem (the issue 
with C238 is inconsistency), but it *is* an issue in that RFC 8445 
managed to beat it to publication, and so it should similarly be 
updated. I will ask the RFC editor to make an appropriate adjustment to 
rfc4582bis, as I don't think its disposition really depends on the 
outcome of the Cluster 238 discussion.

/a

On 8/22/18 3:53 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) wrote:
>
> If I understand the proposal correctly, 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis-16#ref-17 
> should be added to the list of drafts to be updated as well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Charles
>
> *From: *art <[e-mail]> on behalf of Adam Roach 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Reply-To: *Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <[e-mail]>
> *Date: *Wednesday, August 22, 2018 at 10:59 AM
> *To: *Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <[e-mail]>
> *Cc: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" 
> <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" 
> <[e-mail]>
> *Subject: *[art] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238
>
> Members of the ART community interested in real-time communications:
>
> Cluster 238 [1] is a set of inter-related documents dealing with 
> real-time communications. The bulk of these documents relate to 
> WebRTC, either directly or indirectly. They also form the 
> underpinnings of CLUE. As of now, there are 34 documents in the 
> cluster that are not yet published, with 25 of these already in the 
> RFC Editor's queue. The dependency graph among these documents is such 
> that the bulk of them can be published as soon as a specific six of 
> them are handed off to the RFC editor, and we expect this to happen in 
> the upcoming few months.
>
> One long-running complication for this cluster of documents is that 
> each of the documents were developed over the course of seven years, 
> in concert with implementations, while the ICE protocol itself was 
> undergoing significant revision. As a consequence, some documents rely 
> (directly or indirectly) on the older ICE specification (RFC 5245), 
> while some rely on the newer one (RFC 8445). In some cases, documents 
> refer directly to the old version and transitively to the new version.
>
> It is noteworthy that RFC 8445 obsoletes RFC 5245; and that the 
> mechanism described in RFC 8445 has some  changes that break backwards 
> compatibility with the mechanism defined in RFC 5245 (with such 
> behavioral changes controlled by an SDP attribute, allowing clients to 
> transition from one to the other).
>
> Most notably, draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep (which is the core WebRTC 
> protocol in the IETF) refers to directly to RFC 5245, while relying on 
> the behavior defined in draft-ietf-ice-trickle; 
> draft-ietf-ice-trickle, in turn, is based on the newer RFC 8445 
> handling. JSEP's reference to RFC 5245 is a practical consideration 
> that acknowledges that current deployments of WebRTC implement the 
> older version of ICE. At the same time, these deployed implementations 
> use a somewhat older version of draft-ietf-ice-trickle in concert with 
> the older ICE implementation.
>
> In order to get Cluster 238 published, we need to find some way to 
> rationalize its references to ICE. At a basic level, the ART Area 
> Directors do not believe that it makes sense to publish new documents 
> that refer to an already obsoleted RFC. At the same time, we recognize 
> that there is value in our specifications being informed by running 
> code. For WebRTC, the complexity of the system has led us to a point 
> that we must choose between these principles. Our proposal is to 
> choose the first, while acknowledging the second.
>
> This would result in a request to the RFC editor to update all 
> references to RFC 5245 in the Cluster 238 documents to instead point 
> to RFC 8445. Documents not yet in the RFC editor queue would be 
> updated prior to IESG review. We would further request that the RFC 
> editor add the following text to draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview and 
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep:
>
>     While this specification formally relies on [RFC8445], at the time
>     of its publication, the majority of WebRTC implementations support
>     the version of ICE described in [RFC5245], and use a pre-standard
>     version of the trickle ice mechanism described in [RFCXXXX]. The
>     use of the "ice2" attribute defined in [RFC8445] can be used to
>     detect the version in use by a remote endpoint and to provide a
>     smooth transition from the older specification to the newer one.
>
> RFC 8445 would be a normative reference for both documents, while RFC 
> 5245 would be informative.
>
> There is one more minor complication, in that 
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes (which currently points to RFC 
> 5245) is intended to be an exhaustive list of the SDP attributes 
> defined in the documents it lists, and RFC 8445 adds a new "ice2" 
> attribute that was not present in RFC 5245. For this reason, we would 
> also ask the RFC Editor to add a new row to the table in 
> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes section 5.12, as follows:
>
>         +-------------------+---------------------------+-------+-----------+
>
>         | Name              | Notes                     | Level | Mux       |
>
>         |                   |                           |       | Category  |
>
>         +-------------------+---------------------------+-------+-----------+
>
>         | ice2              | Not Impacted              | S     | NORMAL    |
>
>         |                   |                           |       |           |
>
>         +-------------------+---------------------------+-------+-----------+
>
> For clarity, the affected documents are as follows.
>
> The following documents would be updated to reference RFC 8445 prior 
> to IESG evaluation:
>
> ·draft-ietf-clue-datachannel
>
> ·draft-ietf-clue-signaling
>
> ·draft-ietf-rtcweb-security
>
> ·draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch
>
> The following documents would be updated to reference RFC 8445 by the 
> RFC Editor:
>
> ·draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive
>
> ·draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp
>
> ·draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn
>
> ·draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel
>
> ·draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage
>
> The following documents would be updated to reference RFC 8445 and 
> have the text proposed above added to them:
>
> ·draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep
>
> ·draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview
>
> The following document would be updated to reference RFC 8445 by the 
> RFC Editor, and include a new row for "ice2" in its Section 5.12, as 
> described above:
>
> ·draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes
>
> This message is cross-posted to the affected working groups. Because 
> the issue at hand has impact across several different groups, we ask 
> that all follow-up discussion take place on <[e-mail]> 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>. Thank you.
>
> /Adam on behalf of the ART Area Directors
>
> ____
> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C238
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> art mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art