Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and updates/corrections

["Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[e-mail]>]

I like this plan and thank you Ari. 



On Sep 27, 2012, at 7:16 AM, Miguel A. Garcia <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Let me try to conclude this poll.
> 
> We have seen a significant amount of people leaning towards option b. I reproduce hereby the selected option:
> 
> b) Create a revision of ICE (obsoleting RFC 5245), but only addressing
> bug fixing and opening hooks to extensions, with the idea that
> extensions won't need to violate 5245bis. Additionally, document each
> extension in a separate RFC. Extensions will depend and refer to the
> 5245bis draft.
> 
> 
> Then there were some comments indicating that we can go one step further and make ICE independent of the SDP Offer/answer, and document the SDP offer/answer for ICE in a different document.
> 
> So, we should work with the assumption that there will be a kind of ICE framework, and the usages and extensions to it, of which, the SDP O/A usage will be one.
> 
> To do this work, the chairs have been looking for a volunteer who has enough spare cycles and expertise to drive this work. We have recruited Ari Keranen to edit ICE-bis according to what we just described.
> 
> Let's welcome Ari on board and thank him for committing to this effort.
> 
> Due to other Ari's commitments and the current schedule, we expect the first version of 5245bis to be available after the IETF meeting in Atlanta.
> 
> 
> /Miguel
> 
> 
> 
> On 19/09/2012 9:23, Miguel A. Garcia wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> This mail relates to ICE [RFC 5245].
>> 
>> In the past few months, we have seen a number of documents that are
>> trying to improve the usage of ICE in different ways. The list of
>> documents include at least the following drafts:
>> 
>> - draft-keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection-01
>> - draft-petithuguenin-mmusic-ice-attributes-level-03
>> - draft-wing-mmusic-ice-mobility-01
>> - draft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updated-offer-02
>> 
>> There is, in addition, a long discussion in the RTCWEB mailing list
>> about "trickle ICE", and a couple of other ICE-related drafts
>> and discussions in RTCWEB.
>> 
>> Most likely, we can categorize these documents in two big classes:
>> 
>> a) Documents that identify underspecified areas or errors in the spec,
>> which are often driven by implementation experience
>> 
>> b) Documents that update or extend ICE with new functionality, such as
>> "tricke ICE" (see e.g. the e-mail thread at
>> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg05121.html) .
>> Such documents may involve normative updates to the ICE specification or
>> they may simply be ICE extensions.".
>> 
>> Assuming that we would get consensus to adopt some or all of these
>> documents as work to proceed on, the MMUSIC chairs and RAI ADs would
>> like to get some sense of how should we aim at documenting it. Below
>> are some options, please comment on them or add alternatives.
>> 
>> a) Create a revision of ICE (i.e., a document what will obsolete RFC
>> 5245), including all the extensions and corrections that
>> we want to choose from the list. This sounds like a big effort in
>> time, and presumably will create a big spec. We should make sure that
>> people have enough cycles to devote to this activity.
>> 
>> b) Create a revision of ICE (obsoleting RFC 5245), but only addressing
>> bug fixing and opening hooks to extensions, with the idea that
>> extensions won't need to violate 5245bis. Additionally, document each
>> extension in a separate RFC. Extensions will depend and refer to the
>> 5245bis draft.
>> 
>> c) Leave the current ICE core spec as is. Document each extension
>> separately (referring to 5245). Create open or more documents listing
>> bug fixes and corrections (will also update RFC 5245).
>> 
>> Needless to say, at this point in time, there is no decision as for
>> which of the ICE-related drafts will proceed or not. We are just
>> trying to get consensus of how to document ICE-related drafts, and in
>> particular if the WG believes we should do a revision of RFC 5245. If so,
>> we also need to hear who is willing to work on such a revision.
>> 
>> Now, it is your time to express your opinion.
>> 
>> Kindly regards,
>> 
>>          Flemming and Miguel.
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Miguel A. Garcia
> [phone]
> Ericsson Spain
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic