IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] (Rough) Consensus Call - No FQDN support in ice-sip-sdp

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 21 May 2019 21:23 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 807691200E3 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 14:23:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 UWPGbxAYyYZn for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 May 2019 14:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52f.google.com (mail-pg1-x52f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52f]) (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 52109120047 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2019 14:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52f.google.com with SMTP id t187so121591pgb.13 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2019 14:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1pJPbcC3ir4g1vvboAhjrcZay9LoJ3AMtn1zfaSAPCQ=; b=zpI+f0MqJo3Zjd/oSE4+fHwMGgkjSvEhep3tgj/OkEH2IxLNIwqiFTcavouYH3brKm vFVnUxCHvLnsnBDKGZ6rEm4SOpOnFIGZPOuLzP1YV/w/njTt2rA01x/jMTIlMmRpfIfx fE7h/39ClQI2rhuxqqV4ePQxLGo6osFk7IXwmUo/JfL1IvSyRObLBULEeLsH8Cytt8MJ E0UuRDnj+e9ySUNXYfnJ6iJOy9iiXFnl3PwWW6Ib5Ha8ahMs/UQ4FVUXeshtjAVHkGVF IYEJRafAv0kxJxlGmW7Zj6kT+ZvL6c8EQeRc6S8PqGgzNRdXU03x6hN4YFSDYFfHgBrO tZCg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1pJPbcC3ir4g1vvboAhjrcZay9LoJ3AMtn1zfaSAPCQ=; b=eO6fHbhLwYMoYkJZHt0WIe9eERqYiV5blm07fZkLD2zxC888u1IuDezRrHsvwuaaJo JJvCeyc/xeQ5qv58w/TkrFVeV06VPFHNITSnNVBYfcNavREIfX/UO3srBMueKhZFlNsx KwfclOo+RJb8ZtvRmG4j0CkQIjHzdRby607eIi3qyqMFo5rOo176q77YC054YB27kaAM UZljrNvdK7oXxkgKMj8qaYF1X8m62B0E2iVnNmzWL54cPNnzAcVKLu3VAJM2uNQq8oEn erH1H+dOOyMv3QLy/9HzzP3izCyGIxrj1wqhv3ST5EcBc63lwDmJxZy/NvzuKPs3k5jf e0HA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVUY9ovnCL819suwpZYXZfghM8xdbhmfqxBVkFwzCTpOWD/Mgak 94px8yNGupraqG3S9AUhbbzLAqw/CEg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxY4IYrvzBOY2TROZ65Bb7PHh3HStxHwq9/VBeVMsGK0LBymc93LzYYrKszTiWQ5oAS7srzCw==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:1045:: with SMTP id 5mr41078257pgq.55.1558473813721; Tue, 21 May 2019 14:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-f176.google.com (mail-pg1-f176.google.com. [209.85.215.176]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c127sm36165493pfb.107.2019.05.21.14.23.32 for <mmusic@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 May 2019 14:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-f176.google.com with SMTP id h17so157779pgv.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 May 2019 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a62:bd0e:: with SMTP id a14mr71123947pff.44.1558473812730; Tue, 21 May 2019 14:23:32 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <77400318-1e2c-7d33-ab41-a3b8d0062b00@cisco.com> <CAMRcRGQ0gQ0c-pmBQ2ZOOX-5uGWkfy57Yu0QMuAp9ED2f8drwA@mail.gmail.com> <D7E2876E-E750-40C6-B33E-FC24F9CD0709@ericsson.com> <CAOW+2dsy5_cjH2BJJq7mRu9JaQNmh7oqWxUrFDPqBKaceffJaQ@mail.gmail.com> <2226B494-B058-45C8-901B-1B872218ECE7@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxs2fvyqxjcNmNbqx+ToSpnaeqj5LyX4qz2rOuqFp3oBow@mail.gmail.com> <710E80DF-8389-4A5E-9DBE-5DF2D20E4F02@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxtcEWmRvXanh7FsdQAD_fTFRnQc8HhkeLx9mz+-XUX7-Q@mail.gmail.com> <871E99E8-DA8D-4E71-B359-F2388479C38E@ericsson.com> <CAOW+2dvUAed2P-xCOvbcsHJGcs92=ad9T5K63xhpVqdKvjK2fw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxuU-wio4Af8me1OMo62vanu5y_PnQ3nq=UF6jh6yr1EFg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOW+2dskL5P+02xujeEL-SGVPQ8-Gy85hX_DE10TBDwaE1e2Xw@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxu9zKxVhFFxiBzq6v67A18Msd1fZMhbrpXf1=NQAgceAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRcRGTKJmPCr4MZsK613csJ2yXHZzoDFzMtDujui4-NVZkH1A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMRcRGTKJmPCr4MZsK613csJ2yXHZzoDFzMtDujui4-NVZkH1A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 17:23:22 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsui5kV8oyPZvYjgRcyAnic0xLVMZrv_C8xR6c9LKZkrg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsui5kV8oyPZvYjgRcyAnic0xLVMZrv_C8xR6c9LKZkrg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, lemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ffeeb605896c75ce"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/PV0cIRxPxQtjlDKA_Lf2_6nqys0>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] (Rough) Consensus Call - No FQDN support in ice-sip-sdp
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 21 May 2019 21:23:35 -0000

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 1:02 AM Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:19 PM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>
>> There was a bit of discussion earlier about this and the understanding
>> was that RFC 8445 does not deal with FQDN or DNS resolution. RFC 8445 gets
>> a list of candidates with IP Addresses. FQDN resolution as well as the
>> format in which candidates are encoded would be a part of some other draft
>> such ice-sip-sdp or an extension.
>>
>
> [suhas] .. I don’t understand why FQDN resolution should be scoped in
> ice-sip-sdp whose main purposes is offer / answer negotiation and yes
> encoding provided candidates. I agree with Bernard and vote to move fqdn
> resolution outside ice-sip-sdp into a new draft
>
>>
>>
All I am saying that RFC 8445 does not deal with FQDN resolution. It accept
a list of candidates with already resolved addresses. Address resolution is
supposed to be handled an some other draft such as ice-sip-sdp or ITS
EXTENSION (added emphasis).

If we decide to move FQDN resolution into separate draft, it is fine, but
it will not be an RFC 8445 update.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email