IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th september)

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Fri, 20 September 2013 10:47 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 D4DEC21F9346 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 03:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.711
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.711 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.537, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yQsiQJrGEpZb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 03:47:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw7.ericsson.se (mailgw7.ericsson.se [193.180.251.48]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE1C421F9323 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 03:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b7f9a8e000005620-35-523c27ba9ccd
Received: from ESESSHC014.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw7.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 09.06.22048.AB72C325; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:47:23 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC014.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.60]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:47:22 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th september)
Thread-Index: AQHOtds+oqyPOXXX30KyTFCuXf+qS5nORo0AgAAjfGD//+PEgIAAIgMw
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:47:21 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A8798@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A77DB@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAMvTgcfevD4FQDqmVccF0UMZ-tSOtt1Fvjof_gkwvoNFUoBeQA@mail.gmail.com> <523C1F86.8040408@alvestrand.no> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A8710@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <523C259B.5000705@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <523C259B.5000705@alvestrand.no>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4A8798ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje5udZsgg993WS2O9XWxWaz9187u wORxZcIVVo8lS34yBTBFcdmkpOZklqUW6dslcGW0nPvEWLDZpWJx02TGBsZJNl2MnBwSAiYS N85OYISwxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcJhRYs+2D0wQzhJGifXr9rJ0MXJwsAlYSHT/0wZpEBHQkXi4 v4EJxGYWUJe4s/gcO4gtLBAt8WjFRDaImhiJXee/sEDYbhLXTz9hAxnDIqAqMbnJGSTMK+Ar cXRBL9TeeUwS+95NBevlFNCV2LPrJZjNCHTc91NroHaJS9x6Mp8J4mgBiSV7zjND2KISLx// YwWZLyGgKLG8Xw6iPF/iwIXXLBC7BCVOznzCMoFRdBaSSbOQlM1CUgYR15FYsPsTG4StLbFs 4WtmGPvMgcdMyOILGNlXMbLnJmbmpJebb2IERtTBLb8NdjBuui92iFGag0VJnHez3plAIYH0 xJLU7NTUgtSi+KLSnNTiQ4xMHJxSDYwuBeH9sZYbVT+Ea1xkanJf8NUuZqNJa3zNF9N/txsa Jcx09/lbiIdkrN198X61tWvgp775H75lPDlxucBxv+OtRXbTXyfzWX3jv7nmfbL5ygUrlLes 4lj55C6rwNOWGf49IutZFrXYH/Ba5H1aa3t9y0LXrOtKZot5D4bxyD5d7/ZwhaazppwSS3FG oqEWc1FxIgD3okQvdgIAAA==
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th september)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:47:30 -0000

Hi,

The reason I asked is because one of the open issues in BUNDLE is whether identical ICE credentials (and identical address properties) are allowed in the initial Offer, and one of the JSEP authors has been against that :)

But, in general I do agree with you. Whenever we reference procedures defined elsewhere, we shall reference those.

And, in this case, BUNDLE has a section on ICE, so we should reference those. And, if we have any issues with the BUNDLE ICE procedures, we should bring it to MMUSIC, before making deviations "on the fly"...

Regards,

Christer

From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
Sent: 20. syyskuuta 2013 13:38
To: Christer Holmberg
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-04: Some comments on Section 5.2.1. and 5.2.2 (19th september)

On 09/20/2013 12:20 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
I really hope BUNDLE will be used as described in BUNDLE. At least that should be our starting point. If we want to change something, it shall be justified and discussed, before put into a document.

In addition, in the example flow in JSEP, BUNDLE IS used with different addresses, so an alignment will be needed in any case.


Since we're all tracking moving objects, I think we have to write text as best we can, and just point out which parts are normative and which parts are not.

In this particular case, using MUST language for whether or not ICE credentials are the same or different is inappropriate for this spec; instead it should say something like "The BUNDLE spec says that it MUST generate".

Then we just make sure it gets right before BUNDLE is published.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email