IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 14 August 2019 22:40 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 3641E1208EF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 15:40:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.678
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.678 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=nostrum.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 ry7Ibr8pSCMF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 15:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 79D5E120917 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 15:40:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MacBook-Pro.roach.at (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x7EMegVV050165 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 14 Aug 2019 17:40:45 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1565822445; bh=r3RB2bN+F/BldyUF1+LPyZffMV6R4FyIvehOK/ZnQtc=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=Abkn1FfWfa71AYGXjWfx6Z9SqAZOuIon/O9Pu/hzDNuc9Lwvm8Ig1vFmP6/6URkkt nnG8q0UxSl79PfOLzNuknEpuayWHiDiyWtneYf9KbcKl005K98A40WK7d45d0DKgxI lDJgGX1WBKKLVFiv3bMuSf7GzhYQYC+2A9+vEzLE=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be MacBook-Pro.roach.at
To: Justin Uberti <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <b03853a4-1006-4da0-d52f-9e7462a2cd0c@alvestrand.no> <D80CECAF-B520-40A2-BFBB-E39B73BA943D@sn3rd.com> <CAD5OKxsd-SE8VpwFgto3DLbabs+9O+cHMucy1+Cep7tCJQR6+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2XrND6YWqo2tEiDbs7TZpEoiP+MGBAk2aF7hfoMiGk0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtSzOfnN8WrV-duwwfmwa+VJX_3HACiXU43Xeym25GQaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1pKuvNfuPVqJQKj1d0U8Z7JH9aqNU0DkNDMYvec7jyUQ@mail.gmail.com> <40E6F158-7AA1-42AD-9D18-1B4C335ECD64@mozilla.com> <CAOJ7v-2CWAX0W02qdRes3G-_5hiWGhWEdLhregO-nb1m2EDZZQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxu3sCBaN3MmWmeawuYB-sPqfZt6TqF=dSfs6Q0QdXNYKg@mail.gmail.com> <c6649705-465e-0d7e-1a8b-d93b3867cdb4@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxsZtgtWK19jJB4kRDDqZ1NzR9-78fRjgVwJALLFPLRASw@mail.gmail.com> <dee38d45-5561-7e9c-0f48-f0c69ec71403@alvestrand.no> <CAD5OKxtfv5pu3TuE=B=Wq=eni1q_Ch2cwFfYW46nk4Na1MALtQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-0w9miEm-TyfL+F5ttFyx-3XBbDB9eHZCwpF+n_mjEeKA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <7e63dd04-1b11-7118-f158-b48bda0d892d@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 17:40:37 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-0w9miEm-TyfL+F5ttFyx-3XBbDB9eHZCwpF+n_mjEeKA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CFB1239DB597513E75D49218"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/ExOFkFEFPyNaNhHkx5bx00a_AW4>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Is rtcweb the right place for draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 22:40:49 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email