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
>>
>
>
>