Re: [MMUSIC] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-23: (with DISCUSS)

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Ben,

I have submitted the pull request to address these comments:
https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-sctp-sdp/pull/11

I hope that after Christer reviews and merges the pull request, we should
have the latest set of comments addressed.

If we need more information about framing, I believe it should go into
TCP/DTLS related draft, since all that draft-sctp-sdp is doing is reusing
the same framing for exactly the same reasons.

Regards,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> It seems like this conversation has not completed. What do we need to get
> to closure?
>
> A few thoughts of my own:
>
> - I'm not adverse to making non-ICE implementors look at the ICE specs for
> framing information, as long as the citations are precise enough that they
> don't need to read the entirety of ICE. (And the information is really
> there.)
>
> - I am adverse to repeating normative text. I'm okay with adding
> informational text about non-ICE usage, as long as it is general enough to
> avoid confusion about where the authoritative text resides.
>
> - If people think that ICE is not sufficiently specified, we can work on
> that. But I don't think the burden of doing that belongs to this draft.
>
> - The draft is in fact IESG approved in its current state. Material
> changes should be kept to the minimum.
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2017, at 7:06, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> Hi,
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Also I¹m not sure if the ICE part is fully specified. In your previously
>>> mail you wrote
>>>
>>> "As far as TCP/DTLS/SCTP transport tag is concerned, please note that ICE
>>> end points are supposed to send a re-INVITE after nomination process is
>>> completed with the selected candidate address in the m= line. So, if tcp
>>> candidate is selected, re-INVITE must be sent with TCP/DTLS/SCTP
>>> transport tag in the m= line. Also, any offers/answers after the ICE
>>> nomination is complete, are supposed to send the currently selected
>>> candidate in the m= line, which will also be TCP/DTLS/SCTP in case tcp
>>> candidate is selected.³
>>>
>>> From what I understood from ekr, you might not in any case send an
>>> re-invite; but maybe I understood this wrongly. I guess that could also
>>> be further explained in the draft.
>>>
>>
>> Ekr was talking about the specific re-INVITE that is sent directly after
>> ICE nomination. *Other* re-INVITEs can always be sent during the session.
>> But, that is not specific to this draft.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>