Re: [rtcweb] Is rtcweb the right place for draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates?

Just want to remind everyone that a new draft will need to be written to
update ice-sip-sdp to enable sending FQDN in ICE candidates before
mdns-ice-candidate can be released. I would assume it would need to happen
in mmusic.

Also, mdns-ice-candidate is not really rtcweb specific. IP address privacy
concerns addressed this draft apply to any peer-to-peer communication
protocol that uses ICE.
_____________
Roman Shpount

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:40 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:

> Justin is correct regarding the current plan.
>
> /a
>
> On 8/14/19 5:18 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>
> My understanding is that draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates is going to
> be AD sponsored.
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 2:21 PM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Since RTCWEB is closed, I am going to ask once again: Should we
>> move draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates to mmusic?
>>
>> I know people are unhappy with mmusic draft development speed, but if
>> enough people participate, we should be able to complete mdns draft quickly
>> and potentially develop an additional draft which will clarify generic FQDN
>> candidate processing procedures.
>>
>> Thank You,
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 3:47 AM Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/6/19 10:15 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Given mmusic's traditional processing speed, I am not sure there's any
>>>> point in formally moving the document at this point.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is especially slow when none of the people interested in the specific
>>> feature (FQDN in ICE candidates) participate in the discussion. So far this
>>> looks like this feature is going to be shipped regardless of what anybody
>>> thinks about it and without even attempting to discuss it in the group
>>> which is responsible for this functionality.
>>>
>>> My favorite examples are -msid (initial version May 2012, IESG
>>> evaluation June 2016); -sdp-simulcast (initial version April 2015, IESG
>>> evaluation May 2018); -bundle-negotiation (initial version October 2011,
>>> IESG evaluation February 2018).
>>>
>>> Each of these has its own history, but when a group is capable of
>>> discussing a draft for seven years before it is IESG-ready, I question the
>>> effectieness of moving drafts into that group.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> _____________
>>> Roman Shpount
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing listrtcweb@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>