Re: [MMUSIC] Is ice-mismatch media or session level?

[Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>]

On 5/15/19 3:59 AM, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 9:26 AM Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On 5/13/19 1:22 AM, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:
>>     I am inclined to leave it as media-level attribute. I am not sure
>>     what more clarification is needed in the text today ?
>     Are the clarifications Roman suggested below already included ?
>
>
>
> I am finding it hard to parse suggested clarification. I am sure I am 
> missing something.
Roman suggested ice-mismatch should be defined for both media- and 
session-level.

Looking further at the current text, I'm not sure I agree since there 
really isn't any normative behavior associated with receiving 
ice-mismatch. Thus, I'd suggest simply keeping it as-is and media-level 
only.

-- Flemming


>
>
>     Thanks
>
>     -- Flemming
>>
>>     On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 8:41 PM Flemming Andreasen
>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>         Based on the errata, it seems like the intent was for to be
>>         media-level. I'd suggest we keep it that way and add the
>>         clarifications you outline below.
>>
>>         If people feel otherwise, please speak up no later than May 19.
>>
>>         Thanks
>>
>>         -- Flemming (with chair hat on)
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 4/29/19 4:44 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>>         Hi Christer,
>>>
>>>         Thank you for reviewing and responding.
>>>
>>>         On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 1:48 PM Christer Holmberg
>>>         <[e-mail]
>>>         <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Before we just change something back we need to think
>>>             what the reason for the change to media-level was. Could
>>>             it be related to RTCWEB?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         This is definitely not RTCWEB related, since RTCWEB should
>>>         never generate ice-mismatch or use it for any reason.
>>>
>>>         The ice-mismatch attribute was session only according to RFC
>>>         5245 Section 21.1.4
>>>         (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-21.1.4). At the
>>>         same time, according to RFC 5245 Section 15..3
>>>         (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-15.3),
>>>         ice-mismatch is media level attribute only. This being said,
>>>         according to RFC 5245 Section 6.1
>>>         (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-6.1),
>>>         ice-mismatch applies to the whole session, but it is
>>>         specified per m= line. According to errata 3149
>>>         (https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid3149), ice-mismatch
>>>         should be media level. So, it is a bit of a mess.
>>>
>>>         I can change ice-mismatch back to media level, but what we
>>>         need to clarify then is the following: If ice-mismatch is
>>>         present in the m= line, does it stop ICE processing for the
>>>         whole session or for this m= line only?
>>>
>>>         If it stops ICE processing for the whole session then it
>>>         makes little or no sense being specified per m= line. If it
>>>         only stops processing for specific m= line, then
>>>         ice-mismatch probably also makes sense at the session level
>>>         to stop ICE processing for the whole session.
>>>
>>>         I am definitely open to input here.
>>>         _____________
>>>         Roman Shpount
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         mmusic mailing list
>>>         [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>         https://www.ietf..org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic  <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         mmusic mailing list
>>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     mmusic mailing list
>>     [e-mail]  <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>