IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 A68D4129663 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:16:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 DUzPyOvwjCr3 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x231.google.com (mail-qk0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FA971295A6 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x231.google.com with SMTP id 11so21483040qkl.3 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:16:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=0IWOslrZAfhGcctuqPfesBhD5kWFQjZ/p+X086TcVD0=; b=j/CLV5DRu4Sh9RjLXNhy8m7OYRaFKG2SFV1JWTB3W6533YBTI7C8Rvn+W6/uccj0+3 5/7Zuy7b/BIVBHe1uqIcCHf2ON72JkKYYmg06+irVVt+wMkDhhwQu/IV1LacSpHK6Zis THxduLyYsRZO7vyzi+BBbPzTgs4zuhj0ziTNJzV4yuBntPspY6Y9+tb2VJqCaV/chFJt gCLHk8yd27/DvhLCWwPZBCb+AgvPji8SBk5OS4yhYAz5OywrL/c02xAijAVI3JEa4YhP jLIHl2sx5llUXMa7n9Qy+8vjDDHMDLLuV/LHCZShXnlLtNobprzJShNUxEXCzm/NSNNh Czyw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0IWOslrZAfhGcctuqPfesBhD5kWFQjZ/p+X086TcVD0=; b=IBIdM+usXkne9+L7oXldOPJ8weSKNb7HiHnhyN8vgesJr8c/9SJZf8TOT4u9tr9MDv PgAWHZrR7DUXuyyFxCxvUkiEiKM3BnMVm2D5CHoOEY8QUV1K10mbQq7JRXD4LjEJaObQ ei86HhptxpNmKCFn0qwgSTT8SuLxpYYuCHkrJgCUuVhBslhxaoj3i++/02PcSvvL28fP mgqVtOOGmkekBbZt7q1V27M0hxUfv1uYNyIk7C30rAhhVptzejjMmTXH5OicqbQA/EYg scjedTySuAq2gB/jFz0D6o0+tmkRBmO7qgcSk3P2gAPq/W8ecjax1THM/T2tkBGNTNMO V3SQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39m1AptV4/28s2FGlziMb2GjAd7MjnYZV2jkXRqo7aSd1Vp1BZhJtH/n6L/watF/9A==
X-Received: by 10.55.215.149 with SMTP id t21mr3398998qkt.196.1487265398530; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-f174.google.com (mail-qk0-f174.google.com. [209.85.220.174]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y23sm4780186qtc.38.2017.02.16.09.16.37 for <mmusic@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id p22so21885945qka.0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:16:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.55.17.206 with SMTP id 75mr3008955qkr.34.1487265397676; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:16:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.131.66 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:16:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C004589@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CABcZeBOK0T5WbMLi=AS3WOAjDt_D8e8JSTp2czSYdhHv8Xcgtw@mail.gmail.com> <118E7032-775C-46D6-A76A-6DB6EA515528@nostrum.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C004589@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 12:16:37 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxt4mBZ=RaLheOuZCp2TZuhiNZ1E9a86NL8TQ1U2kGsZeQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxt4mBZ=RaLheOuZCp2TZuhiNZ1E9a86NL8TQ1U2kGsZeQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146c91eb77b060548a8f50f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/nEkjlxvMWoGeAWc8W3b3wzIff6M>
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 17:16:41 -0000

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> 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] *On Behalf Of *Ben
> Campbell
> *Sent:* 16 February 2017 17:52
> *To:* Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
> *Cc:* mmusic WG <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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email