Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 17:38 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 74A46129535 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:38:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 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_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-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 3BHhUiGOqKb1 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:38:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x231.google.com (mail-yb0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002: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 E67EE12946A for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:38:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x231.google.com with SMTP id j82so6242884ybg.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:38:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UvtITq0W5R2esHXR8Kz4QiDA46x4qlqmNZxI6nCH8to=; b=EfkzgeETCsxDMIsGVxtmP0LW1BDFVyiJXU9v08YoXfVg9/1H44uHDc4VBRYgqOksjB YpJs3Gm5TkmychDUbOL7f/tp7lTFnah3XaUj7DvK+QTJlQgdMH+CeBR+wH+UHTmVUAow tWd89U8MYIO1fAVSeG0fE2IViXb/pIDgzOn+6DKPEYkmL1LFcLbkEsoCnfX9fhK3k844 NOEajx1xVOpBb892ivA/uRJzMIz3AA5brOUQYaR7me6qeRDKqwAWZ8nyibxuyivk7ZOB duMG6cPQEIh3y6eQzo9HikSLmD/mzwDYtoqVzRR+QQidJEe9a3ybVy93GtXmrxOR7jqu b7bA==
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=UvtITq0W5R2esHXR8Kz4QiDA46x4qlqmNZxI6nCH8to=; b=SIHiYBwiUcGi6ZbkMsO60dWhGDBIgkA6Ro18UMHMGadgik6tGfklFQ+cDA4fSIT5Zd Ft02W9PQXF5rSrKRqISZzsjiPNHLDNa64PmR2hPp1kDEBfHJB32Tzr8twf/p+clSlpab pSqxXRm9A/FWAasu0cUNJuX3XWixnhu8v8cLRETLtSiq3RcrjD3Rt8Kg79Q5EVI6bh7W RH1iW1zM6lj72P533/4ToKpRZljkZtuWZgbEQgelOAx2YpgpVKxQ9oeftTHi0QRWgiG/ XPIipPIX7lIPt99e/KuwLHDs94F+ZVcZ6MBy7QiaXY17HDwND0GhZu8qAPFWtQY66X4u oRBg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39nluwNQpVTpKbN0N0+jlaHLuPSNVQ4d1IjJA5r4AtzrkA3MPUtIkhsgYKyEFuzhlalqVMp7eQ65hSCKsg==
X-Received: by 10.37.78.3 with SMTP id c3mr2415898ybb.180.1487266725996; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:38:45 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.204.80 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:38:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxt4mBZ=RaLheOuZCp2TZuhiNZ1E9a86NL8TQ1U2kGsZeQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBOK0T5WbMLi=AS3WOAjDt_D8e8JSTp2czSYdhHv8Xcgtw@mail.gmail.com> <118E7032-775C-46D6-A76A-6DB6EA515528@nostrum.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C004589@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxt4mBZ=RaLheOuZCp2TZuhiNZ1E9a86NL8TQ1U2kGsZeQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:38:05 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOSt9B43BbNFw29fLOOwvvTTR18eK_ELmF5-carG=ouuA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113e7faee40f920548a944f1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/rwVSkwXXpLUDDoZcYAk5Q4eZf4Q>
Cc: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
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 17:38:48 -0000
I also think the re-INVITE is unnecessary. -Ekr On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Roman Shpount <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> 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 >> >> >
- [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto fi… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Paul Kyzivat
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Ben Campbell
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Roman Shpount
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP prot… Roman Shpount