[MMUSIC] ICE-SDP for SIP/WEBRTC signaling

Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <suhasietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 538BC1294DB for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:55:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 aJd4r3EkW4TY for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:55:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (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 242E9128AB0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id x35so26613219qtc.2 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=oD5dDhddcwWltOCtD3phYPLWc2FYUXm8LcijptEFxVs=; b=PK/x8OSBgy/CsaO6Mjr47hYVhX82NrO82bQ96L7S6wquN+SKxmfD74v3CShxpW2TRf n71abjWCnkJWbMeY0xinrUIw/UdkV5jwEJ97xWtqIdKAjabXvSJi2/aiTmZuYauzBL/m w4tasoKEAUOs5SwSXKuUEWXXwjv7RmCqZ9AuPbJPD3D7hFMax7vqaiOPoLhP0alaoCsM bjPcIbJpmnEedahhwUNNouRxfiNjcsOQ8jUQM9E2U0hFFf3F9mM2xWFj+zXt9W1CHRE1 yx0BrOocjaShp+/RdSqlpcn4OzawENwZS3Y05gtOMEXx/kfT0BNLP6sNYzqyTSqFCS81 8n9A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=oD5dDhddcwWltOCtD3phYPLWc2FYUXm8LcijptEFxVs=; b=bxGOc34M2wTift24c1PNMlo1utuQyblmnRmJsYfO3RuFlXw5tam9YgkRju2igeE0HF MmCYSZS5CsczRF3iRrL25vY5mOytuwDp5vkuHIZNhE1hJfkvBI1p/bqnmcyVfYblISWD Aw8KHQXbXvRLowToKzc7DwkRiR0whSRFqOEAwK7oBwxGMc37+qNLMr7hEXWkqbXrKash 41ZXAJx3RioYNCQJY4rMUpm+SkRpD4VlLjwsxvB7Ih51kbfowpW8Som9BtJ2jJGuvfZS X1M8PxIsdQ+E5iZXDzoLLJ/12qBRhpZMd/WnXHhVqr1ffjdywcE7VpTI3mVjru3yg3pB h1OA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mXtRg+GpIEcrbsThSrRRi9spSjS2H0oC4JsgIXAUfvS0sPScfZJUQKSecvRypG1hcyQx5QBeh2DYX/ig==
X-Received: by 10.237.42.1 with SMTP id c1mr31270993qtd.219.1489395304156; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:55:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.46.163 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:55:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:55:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGQpMhHQetD3D+7uMXKTSpOshwVhr8bXV5tjNJNf7wMPAg@mail.gmail.com>
To: mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e0ad208e3c6054a98dec6
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/0Vy5ImgfaYd52kyTfsWTu02kPQY>
Subject: [MMUSIC] ICE-SDP for SIP/WEBRTC signaling
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:55:06 -0000

One of the major points Adam raised was dealing with non-Sip signaling
(such as WeRTC) in ICE-SIP-SDP draft which focus on SIP signaling alone.

Since SDP applies for both SIP and WebRTC use cases, there are couple of
options to slice this cake:

1. Add a section in the current draft for "WebRTC Usage". But I am not sure
what to say here though?


2. Split ICE-SIP-SDP draft into ICE-SDP, ICE-SIP drafts and in future have
ICE-WEBRTC draft to define WebRTC specific details. This will leave the
ICE-SDP draft to focus on SDP and ICE interactions alone.


Any thoughts ?

Cheers
Suhas