[MMUSIC] ICE-SIP-SDP and RFC6544

Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Mon, 13 March 2017 08:53 UTC

Return-Path: <suhasietf@gmail.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 5E2541294DB for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:53:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 5_8QMSIexUO3 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:53:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x236.google.com (mail-qt0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::236]) (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 01E51128AB0 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x236.google.com with SMTP id n21so26630543qta.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6Yg+gNDOgj5tjbMy1Fto0YVff0nZdu23QrjfAd6BxZ8=; b=nSvEmy4WdDOekjcDdJHRylpV6Ck2e9MATRWEEW4tS8EKwGwo9YVQRFgcWv8O2ssASq fJjVbEZ3YphrVqT8s09EYRqFJhePRuzXGasooGMqNLm3/ybmJW/P7gvMAVtc0S8y0SNe QoZxgO9IOleFjWxysyj8tnZDXLbmns/s4aQB/obZ5eZ8dApqvKu8YuWUXwP9bmhHzvo3 B9XtwYwEmYxcOo+sAhIyIjv47LJdR9m/2sj/iFS94KWQIHJn2R0X8IEnLcj/vBgrcHCc gMwKm/saYmNqiGm7keFyqUn15atRiB0GSR4+aoV2/ZvKY5Zw4ETjh8gaue82KmC35LFn T+LA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=6Yg+gNDOgj5tjbMy1Fto0YVff0nZdu23QrjfAd6BxZ8=; b=pApMkj8Ui3usZGOd8Q0zYuEjP4E1cSGzOKtXegvYv5h30+58kMHLKASk4WFlVKO7RS kbAwu+dROWRdlfcnJSr2FGpjWrT1eE/usdzPZWmNrzt7tndgLA9rTHeb1hGklIXnfsWR gKvYJoz4nKW+pkKYKcLUwo6Oww2/u+5yMai8dc+64wcXWU2QP5fv3aTSAfgFVhE8w03p xl8/U7gsHGvo/ubB3DajrrVEoOTwbomX/FCcCDOiyz4R5nFJoQrCr6BqiLg+xEKqHiRz jNCk+UV8i9QbJdZP3PKJb/wV3BV+DgCAG4M+OqxIPUTZhDoIvARqrHg1aLtLuJdgEJZx gpiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mCO5zUrNNMnnw+O4uBelsZVYhGuIUcSW5yjaw+xVw+h0KCLMLXCbozMgNzs2pcs1A8kvRADAHY7sWcnQ==
X-Received: by 10.200.57.71 with SMTP id t7mr29735480qtb.99.1489395208148; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:53:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.237.46.163 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:53:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 01:53:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGTPb1UFq9vhR2Ar2tp559UEWeJV2LT09D-Dqu4Q3W-Tbw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113eddc24fe3af054a98d8f0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/v2TaaJAhORAhq1pAR4hnX4I601I>
Subject: [MMUSIC] ICE-SIP-SDP and RFC6544
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: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 08:53:30 -0000

Adam raised a valid point on the scope of RFC6544 in the context of
ice-sip-sdp.

We the authors did consider couple of options and would like the WG's
inputs to decide the next steps

1. Merge in RFC6544 into ice-sip-sdp and ice-bis
   This includes bringing in appropriate text from rfc6544 into ice-bis for
ice processing detail and ice-sip-sdp for candidate encoding + offer/answer
specifics

2. RFC6544bis
   Do a bis version of RFC6544 and make it refer to ICE-BIS and ICE-SIP-SDP
wherever appropriate.

3. Any other option ?

We prefer option 2 given the magnitude of RFC6544 merge plan , but are open
to suggestions from either or a new option altogether

please advise.


Cheers
Suhas