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

Roman Shpount <rshpount@turbobridge.com> Thu, 02 March 2017 05:25 UTC

Return-Path: <rshpount@turbobridge.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 C2956129499 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:25:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=turbobridge.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 g5uGgc8unC_n for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:25:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-x231.google.com (mail-pf0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::231]) (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 A8E07129678 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:25:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-x231.google.com with SMTP id w189so18284889pfb.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:25:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=turbobridge.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Rk2/IV4AAgXoSsEVkB76YrlmeO6EQQGCKfLgAzWTz+w=; b=hNXMujDM4HbVWSUwAV44SaBSgh0YPDxrEWkaaZEITSYQo1ElUZDR7MYCVDjWmM7G6E oFPMAvI8HlMaFoUbx/DAshDESLBWou5vfYsl6Nz6nFkbD8Y4mih99KhRL7w0gnTuI6xA Ari3YhGFPbXg5NyYxQKgZRarXHMP/wssOb2Os=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Rk2/IV4AAgXoSsEVkB76YrlmeO6EQQGCKfLgAzWTz+w=; b=MDqvyodJGqdtM3NhbFrHvDYUg0+BtgLCqy6uwH7Ip6+vczw5E/2LMrwahn5V2C7CrD eH300MnisDhKm+UQpQa/YOgIPK778u1mtLzmYpHgrpyyg+/UeAumZ1DKZLbEzBQJ5RGJ EytHH1Rf/CmDiqQ1g6LuCvUJeAWDG1Mxb5RfZLi+xJe6aN4BlbhBk2n/w7vNu4DPfn4s TZmZ2QtJs2OuZYgzAItLz/BjnjxL/tGqmsisdX2A0wqKvrRyfxYkdILlHL8IE+AMzbbV ir6ctk+n6mrCpF26hb+ZiEunMgshdCX/0NHs/d5I3MhlPQtLYJBBY5Ij4F6oYLkZu0XF k2zQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kEqh+wYkzu+ptzVa62XntBWXQyQCMRQbk/KLKyuCKaSrp798yA26vJuUYKanlR2w==
X-Received: by 10.84.229.2 with SMTP id b2mr15162521plk.154.1488432305149; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:25:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pf0-f175.google.com (mail-pf0-f175.google.com. [209.85.192.175]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o24sm13795149pfj.78.2017.03.01.21.25.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:25:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pf0-f175.google.com with SMTP id b5so11276636pfa.1; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:25:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.99.138.202 with SMTP id y193mr13240719pgd.60.1488432302759; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:25:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.161.144 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 21:25:02 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6366ADF1-E3E4-4C91-8579-85246D3E3714@nostrum.com>
References: <148724403323.15929.1432579178871938006.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C0040D6@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <9F29D433-0AE1-43B0-B13E-AEC2861DFE75@kuehlewind.net> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C00438C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABcZeBPPFUe-ZtW9Lt636OhoMH8ws2oVi94YQJeUQKXteC-XRg@mail.gmail.com> <81A8D5E0-6641-4136-AFE6-74D3C49C7707@kuehlewind.net> <CABcZeBMpR+jE7jB4O=k_LPGhEBZPwUpo7vFnov4xvvhw_mYUAg@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C00443C@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxvtxyVn1r1pJhPCYMON-bTwWYjCvxts4K1ucgxaGFcCSg@mail.gmail.com> <41D72B07-0B15-47A9-A118-5C67670F9F4F@kuehlewind.net> <1E30B705-9E74-4460-87D8-1395925B74F8@kuehlewind.net> <CAD5OKxu7DJ5sMW0G_SvzyKiYVeyGxFVSub-aiT2u8kXCfqCF+g@mail.gmail.com> <86C5D8B5-40B6-4228-BF10-00BF9DFEB93C@nostrum.com> <492F1BF9-2F1C-4D16-8B9B-B9FD13592E13@kuehlewind.net> <D4D9F0A9.18675%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <6366ADF1-E3E4-4C91-8579-85246D3E3714@nostrum.com>
From: Roman Shpount <rshpount@turbobridge.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:25:02 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvJTy08tpbiket9BDOUnX3aYvBG12z51W+uJcxqRzgjFA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvJTy08tpbiket9BDOUnX3aYvBG12z51W+uJcxqRzgjFA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c03aefaadc4ac0549b8a6b2
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/5DNCO4poixzWhuEA43W5K0D5m1I>
Cc: "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, "fandreas@cisco.com" <fandreas@cisco.com>, Mirja Kuehlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] =?utf-8?q?Mirja_K=C3=BChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf?= =?utf-8?q?-mmusic-sctp-sdp-23=3A_=28with_DISCUSS=29?=
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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 05:25:08 -0000

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 <ben@nostrum.com> 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
>>
>