[MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and updates/corrections

"Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com> Wed, 19 September 2012 07:23 UTC

Return-Path: <miguel.a.garcia@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67CCD21E8098 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:23:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.255
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.255 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.006, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zffYPNLqWJEe for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AB321E8096 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 00:23:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f7d6d0000042ea-15-505972df7703
Received: from esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B2.5B.17130.FD279505; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:23:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by esessmw0237.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:23:10 +0200
Message-ID: <505972DD.3060908@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:23:09 +0200
From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrBJMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre79osgAg5ZmMYv3F3Qtpi5/zOLA 5DHl90ZWjyVLfjIFMEVx2aSk5mSWpRbp2yVwZTRPuslc8E2k4tHEv6wNjD8Fuhg5OSQETCR2 /lrCAmGLSVy4t56ti5GLQ0jgFKPEq78/2SGcNYwSnbMPM4NU8QpoSxx/NIMRxGYRUJVo33qd HcRmEzCXaN24EcwWFQiWOLdxGxtEvaDEyZlPwDaICMhI7N20GWwOM9Cc2XdmMYHYwgIOEi+W fGeDiNtKXJhznQXClpfY/nYOWL2QgKbE5JtLmScw8s9CMnYWkpZZSFoWMDKvYhTOTczMSS83 10stykwuLs7P0ytO3cQIDL2DW34b7GDcdF/sEKM0B4uSOK+e6n5/IYH0xJLU7NTUgtSi+KLS nNTiQ4xMHJxSDYw7Z1UKy6reO+vENOuIi1HTt88P3dbuL+7afXiBzYOPB55wXWDjqtIMfrso I49v/u4behE8jJNezp3P0/4qqUGn+OAvzq/Fnsf3MG7lv8cm8zlVOW3ZwmI1h1t6k6ubZnxZ kTgn6cBC/bczzh2ds/RZzK3Yv047p+QpBu84/36dvlxf2Q3le0UqSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAdc4A 3QsCAAA=
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and updates/corrections
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 07:23:13 -0000

Hi all,

This mail relates to ICE [RFC 5245].

In the past few months, we have seen a number of documents that are
trying to improve the usage of ICE in different ways. The list of
documents include at least the following drafts:

- draft-keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection-01
- draft-petithuguenin-mmusic-ice-attributes-level-03
- draft-wing-mmusic-ice-mobility-01
- draft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updated-offer-02

There is, in addition, a long discussion in the RTCWEB mailing list
about "trickle ICE", and a couple of other ICE-related drafts
and discussions in RTCWEB.

Most likely, we can categorize these documents in two big classes:

a) Documents that identify underspecified areas or errors in the spec,
which are often driven by implementation experience

b) Documents that update or extend ICE with new functionality, such as
"tricke ICE" (see e.g. the e-mail thread at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg05121.html) .
Such documents may involve normative updates to the ICE specification or
they may simply be ICE extensions.".

Assuming that we would get consensus to adopt some or all of these
documents as work to proceed on, the MMUSIC chairs and RAI ADs would
like to get some sense of how should we aim at documenting it. Below
are some options, please comment on them or add alternatives.

a) Create a revision of ICE (i.e., a document what will obsolete RFC 
5245), including all the extensions and corrections that
we want to choose from the list. This sounds like a big effort in
time, and presumably will create a big spec. We should make sure that
people have enough cycles to devote to this activity.

b) Create a revision of ICE (obsoleting RFC 5245), but only addressing
bug fixing and opening hooks to extensions, with the idea that
extensions won't need to violate 5245bis. Additionally, document each
extension in a separate RFC. Extensions will depend and refer to the
5245bis draft.

c) Leave the current ICE core spec as is. Document each extension
separately (referring to 5245). Create open or more documents listing
bug fixes and corrections (will also update RFC 5245).

Needless to say, at this point in time, there is no decision as for
which of the ICE-related drafts will proceed or not. We are just
trying to get consensus of how to document ICE-related drafts, and in 
particular if the WG believes we should do a revision of RFC 5245. If so, 
we also need to hear who is willing to work on such a revision.

Now, it is your time to express your opinion.

Kindly regards,

         Flemming and Miguel.
Miguel A. Garcia
Ericsson Spain