Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?

Hi,

I think one question is what is meant by “technical”.

As I’ve said before, most (if not all) of the non-editorial changes in 5245bis have been done based on claims (mostly from the RTCWEB community!) that there are features in legacy ICE that don’t work good, can cause congestion etc. So, while legacy ICE may not be broken, in my opinion the changes in 5245bis for sure are more than "nice-to-have" ones.

Regards,

Christer

From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com<mailto:ekr@rtfm.com>>
Date: Thursday 8 June 2017 at 05:38
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com<mailto:fandreas@cisco.com>>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca<mailto:fluffy@iii.ca>>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>, "mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>" <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org<mailto:mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>>, "rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>" <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com<mailto:fandreas@cisco.com>> wrote:
Based on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis/referencedby/ (or you can take a look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jennings-rtcweb-deps/):

draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp/>

draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp/>

draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation/>

I don't see why any of these would require ICE-bis except through trickle.

I appreciate that the document reference graph shows a lot of dependencies on ICE-bis, but what's not clear to me is what the *technical* dependencies are.
-Ekr

You will also have an issue with trickle-ice (and hence draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip).

I think that's it from an MMUSIC point of view.

Thanks

-- Flemming

On 6/5/17 8:43 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Do you have the names of those drafts to hand?

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com<mailto:fandreas@cisco.com>> wrote:
Please note that we have several drafts in MMUSIC that normatively reference 5245bis, and some of those drafts are RTCWeb dependencies AFAIK.

Thanks

-- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair)

On 5/22/17 6:52 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
Note that I don't think the timeline is the major issue (it is an issue) ... they key issue is that 5245bis does not seem to be needed for any technical reason by WebRTC.

On May 18, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:

Hi,

In general, if people have issues with referencing 5245bis because they are afraid it will hold up publication of RTCWEB specs, note that I have indicated to the ICE WG chairs that I think 5245bis is getting ready for WGLC.

Regards,

Christer

From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: 18 May 2017 18:50
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com<mailto:sean@sn3rd.com>>
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?

Sean said:

"draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports: Likewise, the chairs believer that a reference to RFC 5245 is also appropriate in transports.  This draft was changed in version -17 to refer to 5245bis.  From GH: "The drafts -bundle and -dualstack-fairness both depend on 5245bis according to Cullen's chart in 'rtcweb-deps-13', and we already have a normative dependency from -transport on these.  So consistency of the bundle is improved by referencing 5245bis.".

[BA] draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview has a normative reference to draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports which has a normative reference to draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness which in turn has a normative reference to draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis.  So even if you remove the normative reference to RFC5245bis from overview and transports, publication of overview will still be held up until publication of RFC 5245bis, which will obsolete RFC 5245.

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com<mailto:sean@sn3rd.com>> wrote:

On May 18, 2017, at 11:35, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com<mailto:sean@sn3rd.com>> wrote:

On May 18, 2017, at 10:54, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:

I'm really confused about the statement regarding -transports.  You
say that 5245 is sufficient, then follow with justification for the
opposite position.
Sorry the change from 5425 to 5245bis was included in the latest version using that rationale.  This shows to me that it was “nice” to get alignment and point to 5245bis not that it is necessary to point 5245.  I.e., it’d be just fine to switch it back to referring to 5245.
Whoops:

This shows to me that it was “nice” to get alignment and point to 5245bis not that it is necessary to point 5245bis.  I.e., it’d be just fine to switch it back to referring to 5245.

If we have as large a dependency as bundle that refers to 5245bis,
then we are taking a transitive dependency on 5245bis and might as
well refer to that.

A lot of this comes down to what bundle says.  Now, I see that bundle
depends on both 5245 and its -bis, which seems pretty inconsistent.  I
don't immediately see any strong reason for bundle to refer to the
-bis, though it does refer to the ice-sip-sdp draft, which might be
sufficiently implicated as to make the change necessary.  We should
ask Christer to confirm this.

I think that if we clarify that either way, then the reference in
-dualstack-fairness seems less of a concern; that document doesn't
need to reference 5245bis, though it would be nice if it could.
Exactly!

spt

On 18 May 2017 at 10:12, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com<mailto:sean@sn3rd.com>> wrote:
ekr’s discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview has raised whether drafts should refer to RFC 5245 or draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis.  We only need to normatively refer to 5245bis if a technical part of 5245bis needs to be read and implemented in order to implement the referring draft.  We have 7 drafts that refer to RFC 5245 and 2  that refer to draft-ietf-rfc5245bis:

draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview: As noted in my response to ekr’s discuss position [0], the chairs believe that the reference to “ICE” in the ICE Agent definition should be to RFC 5245.

draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports: Likewise, the chairs believer that a reference to RFC 5245 is also appropriate in transports.  This draft was changed in version -17 to refer to 5245bis.  From GH: "The drafts -bundle and -dualstack-fairness both depend on 5245bis according to Cullen's chart in 'rtcweb-deps-13', and we already have a normative dependency from -transport on these.  So consistency of the bundle is improved by referencing 5245bis."

spt

[0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/GWdXRIO68FZwVtzzqugnELKeaY8
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org<mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb