Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation-01.txt

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Just because the draft is “simple”, I still think we shall do it properly,
as this is the specification defining the normative O/A procedures.

Also, based on the discussions regarding SDP related terminology, I think
we should talk about “m=“ sections instead of “m=“ lines.

Sometimes we do need additional WGLCs - I’ve lost count on how many WGLCs
we’ve had for BUNDLE by now :)

Regards,

Christer


On 03/11/17 11:18, "Andy Hutton" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>The comment from Christer below was the only WGLC comment I believe.
>
>Whilst I see some value in what Christer suggests I think this is a
>simple draft which already adequately describes the solution and to be
>honest I don't really want to go round the loop of making significant
>changes to the draft and going through more last calls etc.
>
>Please can the chairs let us know how we should proceed.
>
>Unfortunately I will not be in Singapore to discuss but lets find a
>way to get this done.
>
>Regards
>Andy
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Christer Holmberg
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>>I agree that ideally we should have all the associated procedures in
>>>one place and having two specs is not ideal however we have been going
>>>round this circle for a couple of years now and just need to get this
>>>done.
>>>
>>>Originally we wanted this work to be done in MMUSIC but it got
>>>dispatched to SIPBrandy but it was later discovered that an update to
>>>RFC 4568 was needed and that the SIPBrandy charter did not allow this
>>>so we were told an MMUSIC draft was needed after all to update the RFC
>>>before the SIPBrandy work could be completed.
>>>
>>>I do not want to start again and waste another couple of years lets
>>>just get it finished.
>>
>> I suggest that we:
>>
>> 1)      Keep the SIPBRANDY draft as it is. Perhaps they could add a
>>sentence
>> pointing out that that the normative procedures will be described
>> elsewhere.
>> 2)      Keep the MMUSIC draft, but we add a proper 'SDP Offer/Answer
>> Considerations’ section, where we include the normal subsections (create
>> initial offer, process offer, process answer etc).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Christer Holmberg
>>><[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the mail you referenced the following is said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “I see your point but Currently SIPBRANDY is chartered to produce
>>>> Opportunistic SRTP as a BCP. There is also a milestone to
>>>>
>>>> inform MMUSIC or other appropriate WGs of any changes needed to
>>>>support
>>>> Opportunistic SRTP (Not expected to be published
>>>>
>>>> as an RFC).  I think SIPBRANDY is just carrying out what they are
>>>>chartered
>>>> to do.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, draft-ietf-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation doesn’t really define
>>>>any
>>>> procedures ­ it references the SIPBRANDY draft for everything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “[I-D.ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp] describes how Secure Real-time transport
>>>>
>>>>               protocol (SRTP) can be negotiated opportunistically.”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, as the SIPBRANDY is only Informational, where are the normative
>>>> procedures?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “The exact negotiation mechanism is however outside the scope of this
>>>> document,
>>>>
>>>>               an example mechanism can be found in
>>>> [I-D.ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp].”
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How can negotiation be outside the scope of the document, when the
>>>>title of
>>>> the document contains “negotiating”?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition, the text says that the sipbrandy only contains “an
>>>>example
>>>> mechanism”.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If we are going to have this document, I think we shall include
>>>>normative
>>>> offer/answer procedures. The draft DOES contain some normative
>>>>procedures,
>>>> but I think we shall have it all in one place. One shall not have to
>>>>read
>>>> both documents just to figure out the offer/answer procedures.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Gonzalo Salgueiro (gsalguei) [mailto:[e-mail]]
>>>> Sent: 27 September 2017 21:58
>>>> To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] I-D Action:
>>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation-01.txt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Christer -
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See this:
>>>> 
>>>>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/wov2yErrgtUZURyRyVuVZ6K-nL
>>>>I
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 27, 2017, at 9:19 AM, Christer Holmberg
>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I am currently reviewing draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-03, and the
>>>>following
>>>> question comes to my mind: do we really need
>>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation? :)
>>>>
>>>> Section 3 of draft-ietf-sipbrandy-osrtp-03 already more or less
>>>>contains
>>>> SDP Offer/Answer procedures for OSRTP. We can change the name of
>>>>section 3
>>>> in that draft to ³SDP Offer/Answer Procedures², modify the structure a
>>>> little, and add whatever might be missing.
>>>>
>>>> Or, am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Christer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 14/09/17 19:03, "mmusic on behalf of [e-mail]"
>>>> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
>>>> directories.
>>>> This draft is a work item of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control
>>>>WG
>>>> of the IETF.
>>>>
>>>>       Title           : Negotiating SRTP and RTCP Feedback using the
>>>> RTP/AVP Profile
>>>>       Authors         : Andrew Hutton
>>>>                         Roland Jesske
>>>>                         Alan Johnston
>>>>                         Gonzalo Salgueiro
>>>>                         Bernard Aboba
>>>> Filename        : draft-ietf-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation-01.txt
>>>> Pages           : 7
>>>> Date            : 2017-09-14
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>>  This document describes how the use of the Secure Real-time transport
>>>>  protocol (SRTP) [RFC3711]. can be negotiated using the RTP/AVP (Audio
>>>>  Video Profile) defined in [RFC3551].  Such a mechanism is used to
>>>>  provide a means for encrypted media to be used in environments where
>>>>  support for encryption is not known in advance, and not required.
>>>>  The same mechanism is also applied to negotiation of the Extended RTP
>>>>  Profile for Real-time Transport Control Protocol Based Feedback (RTP/
>>>>  AVPF) [RFC4585].
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
>>>>
>>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-opportunistic-negoti
>>>>at
>>>>i
>>>> on/
>>>>
>>>> There are also htmlized versions available at:
>>>>
>>>>https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-opportunistic-negotiation
>>>>-0
>>>>1
>>>>
>>>>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-opportunistic-n
>>>>eg
>>>>o
>>>> tiation-01
>>>>
>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>
>>>>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-opportunistic-negot
>>>>ia
>>>>t
>>>> ion-01
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of
>>>> submission
>>>> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>>>>
>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
>>>> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mmusic mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>>
>>