Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-09 Submitted

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

A couple of comments.

Q1:

The draft defines the “ice-pacing” attribute, used to negotiate the Ta value, and then references ICE-BIS for usage.

However, ICE-BIS does not describe how it is used in initial offers, answers, subsequent offers etc. I think we need to have some text in section 4 (and subsections) how/if/when the attribute is used in initial/subsequent offers/answers etc.

This of course applies to all SDP attributes, but it seems like some/all of them are already covered.


Q2:

Related to Q1, there needs to be text describing what to do if an offer (or answer) does not contain the “ice-pacing” attribute, or any other attribute that will not be present if the remote peer is RFC compliant. It was agreed yesterday during the ICE session that this should be in the ice-sip-sdp draft, because a RFC compliant ICE agent always uses SIP/SDP.

And, the procedure is the following: if the “ice-pacing” attribute is not present, one should assume the default value defined in RFC 5245 (not the default value in ICE-BIS).

Regards,

Christer


From: Suhas Nandakumar [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 22 July 2016 11:02
To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
Cc: mmusic WG <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-09 Submitted

Hello Christer

  I have submitted -10 version to address the above feedback. Please let me know your thoughts


Thanks
Suhas

On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 6:44 PM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

> The draft currently says the following on Offer/Answer usage for the ice2 option
>
>" The ICE option, 'ice2' is used with the SDP session level "a=ice-

>   options" attribute in an SDP offer to indicate that the initiator of

>   the ICE exchange is compliant to procedures from [ICE-BIS<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-09#ref-ICE-BIS>] (via

>   "a=ice-options: ice2").  The Responding Peer includes this same

>   attribute at the session level in the SDP answer if it is also an

>   [ICE-BIS<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-09#ref-ICE-BIS>] compliant ICE Agent."

>

>

> Are you looking for something more specific than this ?

Since chapter 4 describes how offers and answers are created, I assumed it should be mentioned there. The text you have is a general description.

Regards,

Christer




On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

I see that you have added the definition of the ice2 ice-option. However, you have not defined usage of it in the offer/answer procedures, and it’s not included in the SDP examples.

Regards,

Christer

From: mmusic <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Friday 8 July 2016 at 15:58
To: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-09 Submitted

Hello All

  We submitted -09 version of the ice-sip-sdp draft with the following changes

   1. Added Section 5 for dealing with ice2
   2. updated an example in Appendix A to be IPv6 based end-point
   3. Updated Section 13.2 to say about the aggregation rules for ice2 ice-option
   4. Restructured Offer/Answer sections into a single place as can be seen in Section 4

Thanks to Christer for feedback on the restructuring the offer/answer sections.


We hope that this version incorporates all the outstanding issues. Please let us know if we are missing anything.

Cheers
Suhas