Re: [rtcweb] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

"Roni Even (A)" <> Tue, 04 September 2018 09:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFEE5130E6A; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 02:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4xi60eWN9qrL; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 02:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22855130E66; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 02:16:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 555F93AAC2EA3; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 10:16:28 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 10:16:29 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Tue, 4 Sep 2018 17:16:24 +0800
From: "Roni Even (A)" <>
To: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238
Thread-Index: AQHUP8PoxOqO8W0TIUG4QCVRlDei1qTf3t7g
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 09:16:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD8D276Bdggemm526mbxchina_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2018 09:16:35 -0000

Hi Adam,

Is there a real need to update draft-ietf-clue-signaling-13

There is an informative reference to RFC5245 and the text is

A CLUE call may involve sending and/or receiving significant numbers
   of media streams.  Conventionally, media streams are sent and
   received on unique ports.  However, each separate port used for this
   purpose may impose costs that a device wishes to avoid, such as the
   need to open that port on firewalls and NATs, the need to collect ICE
   candidates [RFC5245<>;], etc.

So since RFC8445b obsolete RFC5245 this is not a major issue.

Anyhow I will ask the authors to update the document

Roni Even

From: clue [] On Behalf Of Adam Roach
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2018 9:13 PM
To: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion
Subject: Re: [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

It's been a week; so far there have been no objections to this plan, and several messages in support. I plan to consult with the other ART ADs to evaluate consensus on this proposal next week, and take appropriate action. If you have thoughts to share, please send them to the ART mailing list before September 5th.



On 8/22/18 12:58 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
Members of the ART community interested in real-time communications:

Cluster 238 [1] is a set of inter-related documents dealing with real-time communications. The bulk of these documents relate to WebRTC, either directly or indirectly. They also form the underpinnings of CLUE. As of now, there are 34 documents in the cluster that are not yet published, with 25 of these already in the RFC Editor's queue. The dependency graph among these documents is such that the bulk of them can be published as soon as a specific six of them are handed off to the RFC editor, and we expect this to happen in the upcoming few months.

One long-running complication for this cluster of documents is that each of the documents were developed over the course of seven years, in concert with implementations, while the ICE protocol itself was undergoing significant revision. As a consequence, some documents rely (directly or indirectly) on the older ICE specification (RFC 5245), while some rely on the newer one (RFC 8445). In some cases, documents refer directly to the old version and transitively to the new version.

It is noteworthy that RFC 8445 obsoletes RFC 5245; and that the mechanism described in RFC 8445 has some  changes that break backwards compatibility with the mechanism defined in RFC 5245 (with such behavioral changes controlled by an SDP attribute, allowing clients to transition from one to the other).

Most notably, draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep (which is the core WebRTC protocol in the IETF) refers to directly to RFC 5245, while relying on the behavior defined in draft-ietf-ice-trickle; draft-ietf-ice-trickle, in turn, is based on the newer RFC 8445 handling. JSEP's reference to RFC 5245 is a practical consideration that acknowledges that current deployments of WebRTC implement the older version of ICE. At the same time, these deployed implementations use a somewhat older version of draft-ietf-ice-trickle in concert with the older ICE implementation.

In order to get Cluster 238 published, we need to find some way to rationalize its references to ICE. At a basic level, the ART Area Directors do not believe that it makes sense to publish new documents that refer to an already obsoleted RFC. At the same time, we recognize that there is value in our specifications being informed by running code. For WebRTC, the complexity of the system has led us to a point that we must choose between these principles. Our proposal is to choose the first, while acknowledging the second.

This would result in a request to the RFC editor to update all references to RFC 5245 in the Cluster 238 documents to instead point to RFC 8445. Documents not yet in the RFC editor queue would be updated prior to IESG review. We would further request that the RFC editor add the following text to draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview and draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep:
While this specification formally relies on [RFC8445], at the time of its publication, the majority of WebRTC implementations support the version of ICE described in [RFC5245], and use a pre-standard version of the trickle ice mechanism described in [RFCXXXX]. The use of the "ice2" attribute defined in [RFC8445] can be used to detect the version in use by a remote endpoint and to provide a smooth transition from the older specification to the newer one.
RFC 8445 would be a normative reference for both documents, while RFC 5245 would be informative.

There is one more minor complication, in that draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes (which currently points to RFC 5245) is intended to be an exhaustive list of the SDP attributes defined in the documents it lists, and RFC 8445 adds a new "ice2" attribute that was not present in RFC 5245. For this reason, we would also ask the RFC Editor to add a new row to the table in draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes section 5.12, as follows:


   | Name              | Notes                     | Level | Mux       |

   |                   |                           |       | Category  |


   | ice2              | Not Impacted              | S     | NORMAL    |

   |                   |                           |       |           |


For clarity, the affected documents are as follows.

The following documents would be updated to reference RFC 8445 prior to IESG evaluation:

  *   draft-ietf-clue-datachannel
  *   draft-ietf-clue-signaling
  *   draft-ietf-rtcweb-security
  *   draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch

The following documents would be updated to reference RFC 8445 by the RFC Editor:

  *   draft-ietf-mmusic-mux-exclusive
  *   draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp
  *   draft-ietf-rtcweb-alpn
  *   draft-ietf-rtcweb-data-channel
  *   draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage

The following documents would be updated to reference RFC 8445 and have the text proposed above added to them:

  *   draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep
  *   draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview

The following document would be updated to reference RFC 8445 by the RFC Editor, and include a new row for "ice2" in its Section 5.12, as described above:

  *   draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-mux-attributes

This message is cross-posted to the affected working groups. Because the issue at hand has impact across several different groups, we ask that all follow-up discussion take place on <><>. Thank you.

/Adam on behalf of the ART Area Directors