IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dispatch] Questions regarding draft-petithuguenin-dispatch-rtp-pmtud-00

Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org> Tue, 21 March 2017 10:29 UTC

Return-Path: <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
X-Original-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dispatch@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C9521296CE; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 0GCS2YquP2_k; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (unknown [IPv6:2001:4b98:dc0:45:216:3eff:fe7f:7abd]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9772F12947D; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2601:648:8301:730f:3d5a:a5f5:d63b:49da] (unknown [IPv6:2601:648:8301:730f:3d5a:a5f5:d63b:49da]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6505EAEB2F; Tue, 21 Mar 2017 11:29:27 +0100 (CET)
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, DISPATCH <dispatch@ietf.org>, draft-petithuguenin-dispatch-rtp-pmtud@ietf.org
References: <CABkgnnUhqNAOPx0w3FE8yuBTfV2vL1ok73S-PJjQCktL3nozKg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <marc@petit-huguenin.org>
Message-ID: <3a0bda90-e20f-73bd-344a-7067d48b38c6@petit-huguenin.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 03:29:18 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUhqNAOPx0w3FE8yuBTfV2vL1ok73S-PJjQCktL3nozKg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4fLmACQluJw9GFFKMQRIu07KhqBf4nfTs"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dispatch/72gw4pmxCnjt5YoiT70NWkuzMJY>
Subject: Re: [dispatch] Questions regarding draft-petithuguenin-dispatch-rtp-pmtud-00
X-BeenThere: dispatch@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: DISPATCH Working Group Mail List <dispatch.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dispatch/>
List-Post: <mailto:dispatch@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dispatch>, <mailto:dispatch-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 10:29:34 -0000

On 03/20/2017 08:20 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> This draft would appear to be firmly in the MMUSIC working group
> remit.  I note that the ICE working group defines mechanisms for ICE,
> and MMUSIC defines SDP.  Since this really only uses a mechanism that
> is defined in TRAM, the only new protocol pieces here are some SDP,
> which MMUSIC is good at.

Yes.

> 
> I see that this is a new -00 draft, so maybe it's just too new to have
> been discussed.  Was it rejected from those groups?

No, this draft comes from some bits that we removed from draft-ietf-tram-stun-pmtud when we found out that the usage for RTP (or ICE or whatever) was too under-defined to be useful.  I also see that document as a blueprint on how to specify a PMTUD extension to an existing protocol.  This is the first appearance of the idea of doing PMTUD for RTP sessions in this form.

> 
> On the details, ice-options is a better place to signal this.  Drop
> the abominable x- prefix at the same time.
> 

I am not sure about the ice-options (I agree with the x- prefix), as an ice-options would restricts the signaling to ICE.  It's probably safe to say that WebRTC will be the main user of that draft, but may be SIP would like to use that too without ICE.  Hence Dispatch.

-- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: https://marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email