Re: [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-28: (with COMMENT) - All comments should now have been addressed

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Some other issues have been raised, but I’d like to double check whether
someone has any issue with the suggestion to remove ufrag change as a
trigger for a new DTLS association?

Based on the comments received so far, I don’t think anyone has objected.

Regards,

Christer










On 31/08/17 09:10, "Christer Holmberg" <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>>>I have updated the PR. It should now address the IESG comments given by
>>> Adam, Ekr, Alexey and Mirja.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/35
>>>
>>>
>>> In the latest commit (#7):
>>>
>>> - Section 7 (Transport Protocol Considerations) was removed.
>>> - Text regarding correlation of SDP and TLS connection was added to the
>>> Security Considerations (as requested by Mirja).
>>>
>>> Please let me know if there is something I¹ve forgot.
>>
>>The list of issues I posted to MMUSIC included the question about
>>whether ufrag change requires a DTLS restart in the absence of a
>>'tls-id'. There was a bit of discussion on that list which seemed to
>>conclude that it should *not*. I believe the document needs to reflect
>>this -- but I'd specifically ask the MMUSIC chairs whether they see
>>consensus on this point first.
>
>
>Correct, I forgot to mention that the PR yet does not address the ufrag
>issue, waiting for a WG consensus.
>
>Note that there is currently a discussion in RTCWEB on whether a ufrag
>change should trigger an ICE restart. But, as an ICE restart does not
>automatically trigger a DTLS restart I assume it won’t affect
>draft-dtls-sdp. Worth keeping in mind, though.
>
>
>>On the topic of looking over your changes: it's still easier to read a
>>text-form document than digging through XML source. Version numbers are
>>free. I encourage you to drop a new version whenever you ask people to
>>look at changes.
>
>I will submit a new version.
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>