Re: [Ice] [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>Adam, Ekr, and I spoke last week, and came to the conclusion that trying
>to untangle all JSEP dependencies on SIP would require more effort than
>is justified, and that the most expedient approach would to just fix the
>currently orphaned JSEP references to point to
>draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp.
>
>Adam has removed this point from his discuss, and has entered an RFC
>editor note on JSEP to change the relevant references. (If anyone sees
>JSEP references that will still be orphaned after applying that note,
>please speak up asap.)

FIRST, what do you mean by "relevant references"? Is there a list of the
trickle references that is to be changed (draft-ice-trickle ->
draft-mmusic-trickle) in JSEP, or do you assume ALL trickle references in
JSEP will be changed?

After a quick scan of JSEP, it seems like most of the references CAN be
changed, but e.g., section 1.1 of JSEP says:

  "However, [I-D.ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip]
   allows SIP to be used with trickle ICE [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], in
   which the session description can be sent immediately and the
   transport information can be sent when available."


If we are going to keep that sentence I assume the reference do
draft-ietf-ice-trickle will stay.

---

SECOND, in some cases it is not enough to simply change the reference,
because the text in JSEP references specific section numbers, which are
not the same in draft-ice-trickle and draft-music-trickle. Those section
numbers need to be updated too (or removed completely), and I don't think
the RFC editor is expected to figure out what the correct modified section
numbers are?

---


THIRD, bringing up an old pending issue related to this, I think we should
now also change the core ICE reference in JSEP from RFC5245 to
draft-5245bis. Draft-5245bis is now in the RFC editor's queue, and I think
the MISREFs for 5245bis and JSEP are more or less the same, so I don't
think 5245bis is going to delay the publication of JSEP.

---

Regards,

Christer



>> On Apr 15, 2018, at 2:16 AM, Christer Holmberg
>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>> Yes. The question is whether to just move the references in JSEP to
>>>point to mmusic-trickle-sip, or do something different.
>> 
>> I think it would be good to have a list of all the reference instances
>>that need to be modified.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Christer
>> 
>>> On Apr 13, 2018, at 1:29 PM, Christer Holmberg
>>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> In addition, as I mentioned earlier, there are cases where JSEP
>>>references draft-ice-trickle for things and procedures that don't exist
>>>in draft-ice-trickle. Instead those references should be to
>>>draft-mmusic-trickle.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> Christer
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> 
>>> On 13 Apr 2018, at 17.56, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 13, 2018, at 7:06 AM, Christer Holmberg
>>>>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 4, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Peter Saint-Andre
>>>>>>> <[e-mail]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 4/3/18 2:41 PM, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]
>>>>>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
>>>>>>>>> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/18 12:27 PM, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Just to complete, ice-bis doesnąt normatively reference
>>>>>>>>>> ice-sip-SDP draft when it moved to using łusages ł indirections
>>>>>>>>>> for signaling protocols.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Trickle ice can use similar approach and refer to trickle-sip
>>>>>>>>>> as usage for trickle.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> It already does. That's why we pulled all the SDP/SIP stuff out
>>>>>>>>> of draft-ietf-ice-trickle.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I assume Suhas meant separating the SDP stuff from the SIP
>>>>>>>> stuff. (I  also assume he will correct me if I am wrong.)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That's right Ben .. I was just thinking minimal localized changes
>>>>>>>> (thus small time to get new draft done) and then asking trickle,
>>>>>>>> trickle-sip to refer to the new one. (work done to refer is much
>>>>>>>> smaller for these drafts that are at the very end of approval
>>>>>>>> journey)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I do agree with Adam, no matter what version of the proposal we
>>>>>>>> pick, there is some work that needs to be done and we should do
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> These documents are on the telechat tomorrow. Are we proposing to
>>>>>>> delay consideration by the IESG while we get this mess sorted out?
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi Peter,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I currently plan to leave it on. We may discuss a way forward on
>>>>>> the telechat. Also, Iąd like to get feedback on the rest of the
>>>>>> draft(s) from the other ADs sooner than later.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Did you discuss this at the telechat?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any other discussions on how to move forward with this?
>>>> 
>>>> Yes, Adam and I have been discussing this with the RTCWEB chairs.
>>>>We've since discovered that this is not the only JSEP normative
>>>>reference chain back to SIP. The RTCWEB chairs are currently
>>>>discussing whether they can live with that. They may decide to just
>>>>reference things as they stand. If their answer involves a request to
>>>>restructure anything, I will pull in the authors and MMUSIC/ICE chairs.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> 
>>>> Ben.
>>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>