Re: [MMUSIC] Revisit consensus ? [Re: ICE updated offer - Back to the initial question]

["DOLLY, MARTIN C" <[e-mail]>]

Why are you playing around with SDP?
Getting SDP offer/answer to work is difficult as it is.
Not being able to rely on SDP information to begin with is the wrong way forward, and it will have big impacts on existing SIP based deployments.
Interoperability with existing SIP deployments is very important.

Regards,

Martin Dolly
Lead Member Technical Staff
Core & Government/Regulatory Standards
AT&T Standards and Industry Alliances
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
[phone]


From: mmusic [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Flemming Andreasen
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 1:36 AM
To: Christer Holmberg; Stach, Thomas; Ari Keränen; mmusic
Subject: [MMUSIC] Revisit consensus ? [Re: ICE updated offer - Back to the initial question]

In terms of consensus call, we had pretty strong consensus in the meeting for option #3 (see under http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/90/minutes/minutes-90-mmusic#h.1yc63e74pbhi). To recap, the options and consensus outcome were:

<quote>


3 options

1. Current 5245 behavior (only if change from default candidate)

2. MUST always do updated O/A (whether change or not)

3. "Ekr's" proposal: you do it or don’t do it, but you indicate in the o/a if you’re going to do it. Basically want to have option to never do the updated O/A exchange, with an indication in the signaling that you will not be doing it. Of course can always initiate a new O/A exchange whenever you want to.



Consensus call by chair (Flemming):

0 for option 1

3 for option 2

15 for option 3
</quote>


Since then, Ari started a thread to find out if option 3 was causing major problems for people, and if so, if there were a (better ?) way of addressing those. This is essentialy what this whole "ICE updated offer" thread has been about.

From a chair point of view, I think it's fair to say that we have heard additional points of view and proposals as part of this thread, but that we also only heard from a subset of the people involved in the discussion at IETF 90. What I would suggest is that the author (Ari) actively engages the people that expressed an opinion at IETF 90 in this discussion to get their points of view. We can then discuss at IETF 91 again and take another consensus call based on all the information available. We will make sure to also take that consensus call to the mailing list subsequently to hopefully agree on the way forward (or at least get explicit consensus).

Thanks

-- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair).



On 10/17/14, 7:08 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi,

There was a consensus call for 3, so the minutes are correct.

I apologize if I should have challenged the minutes, rather than waiting for an explicit verification call from the chairs.

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my Windows Phone
________________________________
From: Stach, Thomas<mailto:[e-mail]>
Sent: ‎17/‎10/‎2014 13:58
To: Christer Holmberg<mailto:[e-mail]>; Ari Keränen<mailto:[e-mail]>; mmusic<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [MMUSIC]  ICE updated offer - Back to the initial question
>
> Hi,
>
> Whatever decisions are made at the meetings must (or, at least that seem to
> be de facto practise) be confirmed on the mailing list.
You're right I also haven't seen an explicit consensus call on the list.
But there also wasn't objection against the minutes and they say:
"Chair calls consensus on option 3."
Maybe the chairs can help where we are wrt to consensus or not consensus.




_______________________________________________

mmusic mailing list

[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic