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

Christer Holmberg <> Mon, 06 March 2017 08:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A463612944F; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 00:31:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q7Bid9-mGtS4; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 00:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 86BF112945C; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 00:31:39 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-29b639800000484c-92-58bd1e69fd89
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 22.AD.18508.96E1DB85; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:31:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Mon, 6 Mar 2017 09:31:33 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>, Roman Shpount <>, Ben Campbell <>
Thread-Topic: =?windows-1254?Q?Mirja_K=FChlewind's_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sd?= =?windows-1254?Q?p-23:_(with_DISCUSS)?=
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2017 08:31:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D4E2EB5A18CC8christerholmbergericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7hG6m3N4IgyVfJC3md55mt3i1bj6z xYrX59gt3l/QtZjxZyKzxYvrH5ktzu9cz2QxdfljFovrT3exOHB6TPm9kdVjyZKfTB4tHxey esza+YTFY/LjNmaPrX//sgWwRXHZpKTmZJalFunbJXBlLJ7fw1rQWFJxd8NPtgbGGaldjJwc EgImEkv+b2LuYuTiEBJYxyjRs/UdI4SziFFi3vJXbF2MHBxsAhYS3f+0QeIiAk2MEpe2vGED cZgFdjFJXPlylx3EEQbJbFn5iBmirJlRYt23vewQzjJGiU3TbjKCbGQRUJGYO2cXE4jNK2At ce7tQTaIhY84JPZ3nmcBSXAK2Ei8v98JZjMKiEl8P7UGrIFZQFzi1pP5TBCnC0gs2XOeGcIW lXj5+B8riC0qoCex/PkaqLiixMdX+xhBnmAWSJBYdssUYq+gxMmZT1gmMIrOQjJ1FkLVLCRV ECUGEkfO3WSFsLUlli18zQxh60vMW7ABqsZa4t63aShqFjByrGIULU4tLs5NNzLSSy3KTC4u zs/Ty0st2cQIjP2DW35b7WA8+NzxEKMAB6MSD2/BjD0RQqyJZcWVuYcYJTiYlUR4D24BCvGm JFZWpRblxxeV5qQWH2KU5mBREuc1W3k/XEggPbEkNTs1tSC1CCbLxMEp1cCYo7XiZ4rW/Oms mkvVbwbIpHgWsx2dne53RqRrR9wqtyOZdpXZ/Zv54x+9V+2L+fj+9JaHa2s7OvgE/rjqsEh1 TnKtu5A7favG0rfzt99tPWvp+3LKmtKeCTzxnprhvQdcTi9cUPDulebDrcXuTgIZurl7rKSk z+XK1u4x4noh5uWhWzTX/J8SS3FGoqEWc1FxIgCOynOO+QIAAA==
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Mirja Kuehlewind <>, The IESG <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] =?cp1254?q?Mirja_K=FChlewind=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-m?= =?cp1254?q?music-sctp-sdp-23=3A_=28with_DISCUSS=29?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2017 08:31:43 -0000


I haven’t seen any objections to Roman’s pull request, so I intend to merge it and submit a new version of the draft.



From: Christer Holmberg <<>>
Date: Thursday 2 March 2017 at 12:28
To: Roman Shpount <<>>, Ben Campbell <<>>
Cc: Mirja Kuehlewind <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Eric Rescorla <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Flemming Andreasen <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-23: (with DISCUSS)
Resent-From: <<>>
Resent-To: Gonzalo Camarillo <<>>, Salvatore Loreto <<>>, Christer Holmberg <<>>
Resent-Date: Thursday 2 March 2017 at 12:28


There may be some minor editorial nits, but in general I am ok with the pull request.



From: Roman Shpount <<>>
Date: Thursday 2 March 2017 at 07:25
To: Ben Campbell <<>>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <<>>, Mirja Kuehlewind <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Eric Rescorla <<>>, "<>" <<>>, Flemming Andreasen <<>>, "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-23: (with DISCUSS)


I have submitted the pull request to address these comments:

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.


Roman Shpount

On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:57 PM, Ben Campbell <<>> 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:



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.