Re: [MMUSIC] [Ice] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

On 5/9/18 2:46 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>>> Regarding core ICE, I still think we shall replace the RFC5245 reference
>>> with a reference to draft-5245bis, for the following technical reasons:
>>
>> I would view this as a huge changes that would need some pretty significant testing and discussion in the 
>> WG. Right now, as far as I can tell the browser have implemented ice not bis.
> 
> So, "the browser" supports e.g., both types of nomination?
> 
>> I would like WebRTC 1.0 to be what people have implemented - the reason it is ice not bis is it is unclear if bis performs as wells as ice. 
> 
> I assume our primary task is not to document what has been implemented, but to provide procedures on how to implement things.
> 
> As I said earlier, e.g., many of the trickle ICE procedures are based on the 5245bis procedures. If you want to implement trickle based on RFC 5245 there are details and procedures that you will have to figure out yourself, because they are not documented, which means that different implementations likely will do things in different ways.

Although the trickle *technique* goes back to 2005 and thus predates the
publication of RFC 5245 by ~5 years, formally speaking you are correct
about alignment of details between draft-ietf-ice-trickle and 5245bis.

Peter