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

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Do you have the names of those drafts to hand?

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>
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 <
>>> [e-mail]> 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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
>>> Sent: 18 May 2017 18:50
>>> To: Sean Turner <[e-mail]>
>>> Cc: RTCWeb IETF <[e-mail]>
>>> 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 <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 18, 2017, at 11:35, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 18, 2017, at 10:54, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
>>>>> 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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>