Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 08 June 2017 02:39 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE39129420 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:39:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 1IRFwv-hetuO for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x233.google.com (mail-yb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::233]) (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 00B661200F1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x233.google.com with SMTP id 4so6803358ybl.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 19:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=h/KYlaMMq11Qdb9OiXJDjBbcl0PQx72W4A9oNpnE0sY=; b=KOSl8PP/PHOUYlH59iJnnqZfipU5LQ/UbQlFFDf/Z9TizZErBu9QyfzNI21z1/B9X2 UL6Z7j/Ey4KMwL60OpWcZJut59x40dANazB4tTcDW2gNpDrbHrSbEvtFACbtGNqbWkXg xCauPzSG2STdmE0dhjSWegQ9PrLrA6vApEGQ2bJxB+Jk+8OFKsikkAHfnJqvZzSCTEZC 3QDYOGb8SPPod2az4R0MoGOKuNSBTW5S50EyU17qPJIrnIbfriB2ndXRwVNFTjeRhWxn aTwZvOWLUind8LwlBAKb6SDFHnS0LPAq3orZUnp2oMyYNlUEnSNhcZWOYIjfRaravBWV 96uw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=h/KYlaMMq11Qdb9OiXJDjBbcl0PQx72W4A9oNpnE0sY=; b=FXZTkNvtmbXki3nXJKuulHtGbj8sJLAlGYQEDI2qJykHnKQkSYnrTBVhFI9+I+fqEj B2fZ+DqC6oVE0Nq+eJniwIHaDbXv9GEOi+pGHSR3TBZY03ZoV1RN3lNznrLypg4R8HPX 9/BTSQVcxjBNyBPkFAjFcklvnsjplSw9q7jjtfPmNueQWhG9dXQ2fYBqQwhwGIm6zEsM uXVQVPMY/kHeWQhH1EsqXUldETrQzSwCGRnYEE5BheDOgu2w+NaDf9RQWGdEoRUTGCXI mig3IDKCyHDcgareJDQMcVQl1J3zlNa1X2blx5Y6boSfnI5NP93jog2ofscRTikTWQFJ dCwQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDB30IvRNWAq9/Ot1vXx3/PThwMsYLk1/kl0KquOMkm3E2ICR/I vLwpbCvo/P7T7GGijyjMiqRdzfAfX71J
X-Received: by 10.37.68.87 with SMTP id r84mr9462607yba.229.1496889575245; Wed, 07 Jun 2017 19:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.215.4 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Jun 2017 19:38:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3d52929e-a0f1-36d9-3361-93b875d355cc@cisco.com>
References: <4C1F0FE7-F7E6-47F7-922D-057E4E7FA466@sn3rd.com> <CABkgnnVhS07gUdw+MJT8dLH89=Y1HBhrrwh6wTGs5gyy8O5DWw@mail.gmail.com> <3CC0A416-5A81-46FA-886C-5F43BA5193A6@sn3rd.com> <6BD64B92-4DE2-4BAD-A23D-65E8F52E13B0@sn3rd.com> <CAOW+2duBrC3f=-XaKFvMmyQ_JU72eTsES-UZDYPjQg6yZhab8Q@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CBA8FEF@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <E9FF59C3-91E6-435D-A57B-7DE96CD7B969@iii.ca> <58f45548-6c04-348b-a9e7-b87a17dbe93c@cisco.com> <CABcZeBNW4UR29rOoxyS8mT_cehz0wFXf+iuV-0ciNYUyYUXYJA@mail.gmail.com> <3d52929e-a0f1-36d9-3361-93b875d355cc@cisco.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 04:38:54 +0200
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMSiy06DeRNox9b=A-xtGyAr3OB8rxBbtBO9OdL+1p9sQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org" <mmusic-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113f5f3e669a98055169c363"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/80CA6Dto1phijkqI6rEqNa5S3PQ>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2017 02:39:39 -0000
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Flemming Andreasen <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> > 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> 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] On Behalf Of Bernard >>>> Aboba >>>> Sent: 18 May 2017 18:50 >>>> To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> >>>> Cc: RTCWeb IETF <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> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On May 18, 2017, at 11:35, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 18, 2017, at 10:54, Martin Thomson <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> 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/GWdXRIO68FZwVtz >>>>>>> zqugnELKeaY8 >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> rtcweb mailing list >>>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rtcweb mailing list >>>> rtcweb@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rtcweb mailing list >>>> rtcweb@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rtcweb mailing list >>> rtcweb@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >> > > >
- [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Martin Thomson
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Peter Thatcher
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Flemming Andreasen
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Sean Turner
- Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245? Flemming Andreasen