IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 14C6412946A for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:40:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9YvsfNXM00wl for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:40:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sesbmg23.ericsson.net (sesbmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.37]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FF52129406 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:40:54 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-93e1698000001738-48-58a5e4248ccf
Received: from ESESSHC016.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.66]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 4F.88.05944.424E5A85; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:40:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.76]) by ESESSHC016.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.66]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:40:36 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?
Thread-Index: AQHSiGuZ0ghkIgIFz0iRXtxKyN1pOqFrt7kAgAAhoiD///XmgIAABf+AgAARKfA=
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:40:35 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C00464B@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CABcZeBOK0T5WbMLi=AS3WOAjDt_D8e8JSTp2czSYdhHv8Xcgtw@mail.gmail.com> <118E7032-775C-46D6-A76A-6DB6EA515528@nostrum.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C004589@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxt4mBZ=RaLheOuZCp2TZuhiNZ1E9a86NL8TQ1U2kGsZeQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOSt9B43BbNFw29fLOOwvvTTR18eK_ELmF5-carG=ouuA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOSt9B43BbNFw29fLOOwvvTTR18eK_ELmF5-carG=ouuA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.148]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C00464BESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrGIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7k67Kk6URBiu/mFrM7zzNbrHi9Tl2 i6nLH7NYzLgwldmBxWPJkp9MHrN2PmHxmPy4jdnj1pSCAJYoLpuU1JzMstQifbsEroyeixdY C5btZKxoac5tYNywhbGLkZNDQsBEYuKORjBbSGAdo8TKfo8uRi4gezGjxPXGb6xdjBwcbAIW Et3/tEFqRAScJU60vWADsZkF7CUarjWyg9jCAk4Sb95fZYWpOXejiRGkVUTAT+LLT26QMIuA qsSG5a/BWnkFfCV2L+lig1h1nUli6dptzCAJToFAifVvroEVMQqISXw/tYYJYpe4xK0n85kg bhaQWLLnPDOELSrx8vE/VghbSaJxyRNWiPp8ic0966CWCUqcnPmEZQKjyCwko2YhKZuFpGwW 0NnMApoS63fpQ5QoSkzpfsgOYWtItM6Zy44svoCRfRWjaHFqcVJuupGxXmpRZnJxcX6eXl5q ySZGYOwd3PJbdQfj5TeOhxgFOBiVeHgL9i2NEGJNLCuuzD3EKMHBrCTCu/oqUIg3JbGyKrUo P76oNCe1+BCjNAeLkjiv2cr74UIC6YklqdmpqQWpRTBZJg5OqQbG1tvv9JRrd31fufFaUF1E zqnAaQpuBzLKeSbahR5/G+xkyPq8PMz/7qnlXn9CBO7fVprBeG7e180GbsZvJnbl1Fi0HZRp 4Trw74CRILf8LqPss9LM6pcW6JWp/LzwIHPSq/IZH/P+nFq5Lo7Fa5rcHr/lH1b/CFKKXBc2 cSX3/vzHdY45hQ0RSizFGYmGWsxFxYkAQm8tdrkCAAA=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/cLAcpGlaHSIW33jFN5mTtBujwyk>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:40:57 -0000

Hi,

It’s not only the re-INVITE, it’s ANY subsequent offer sent during the session.

However,  I think we changed that part. The draft now says that when sending an offer or answer, the m- line proto value must reflect the DEFAULT candidiate.

Regards,

Christer

From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:ekr@rtfm.com]
Sent: 16 February 2017 19:38
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>; mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?

I also think the re-INVITE is unnecessary.

-Ekr

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com<mailto:roman@telurix.com>> wrote:
The way ICE is currently defined, ICE enabled 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 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.

Based on all of this, I would strongly suggest to keep TCP/DTLS/SCTP.

Regards,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Hi,

My suggestion is to keep the TCP/DTLS/SCTP definition.

We earlier made a choice to restrict the scope of the document (by removing plain SCTP and DTLS-over-SCTP proto values), and I think we should keep the current scope.

Regards,

Christer


From: mmusic [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
Sent: 16 February 2017 17:52
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>>
Cc: mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?


Process background: draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp was on today's IESG telechat. The draft is approved for publication, but with a point raised to ask the WG resolve Ekr's question.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 16 Feb 2017, at 9:43, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I raised this with the authors, but maybe it is worth asking the mailing list.

It seems like we are trending towards a world where we just ignore the transport
component of the proto field and let ICE work things out. In that vein, I wonder
do we really need to register/define TCP/DTLS/SCTP. It's only really useful if
we think people will do SCTP over DTLS with TCP without ICE. Is that actually
likely. I note that per previous discussions, JSEP already requires that you use
UDP/DTLS/SCTP all the time: http://rtcweb-wg.github.io/jsep/#rfc.section.5.1.2

-Ekr


_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email