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

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Thu, 06 September 2018 20:41 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.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 6A0FF130F43; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:41:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 tdLrnsGwFy7M; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:41:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ua1-x934.google.com (mail-ua1-x934.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::934]) (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 B85DA130EBC; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ua1-x934.google.com with SMTP id q7-v6so10193199uam.12; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:41:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8xNvUcTCIpFSP1L9JMhOcpBVxZViIOjRQjBI+dRfD4k=; b=Pe7IYFMjcGr3lEl5jtfj0TP61e4ZXHEvLqFYIMCfyOa7JWWTo/PD2nF1+4ZHNnfGYw ZI+sme10w/9B7ge2UHAfrM1Zb2S0Rtj/bcsWqzfZkqbW2WRI0NGl+tfoyBtYwIHVNZ7o pF+uv1bfYcsDFtNhASmW2dwMpAZmMytOAXKBgCSvOHA9ZdkWsZakUCGsCrZh05DOJDUK AfbsvZXE7zICADABNVmA7frKHB3qNHzggmQar9izC12bdh+x1qcn+ugVXKSYFDoRBzrl z2/iz8qqGljGaJS7z3L0DEfu+Q3vQcwQx311Mzt4eLzzx2hqVZ9hG8jBYfWeLIJoCHk4 GTXg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8xNvUcTCIpFSP1L9JMhOcpBVxZViIOjRQjBI+dRfD4k=; b=bEavS/weR1qdtNUz5vTV8/H5aytU+9KuZB8whuIsx5nM4oiqRY+aRfH/8Zm7EHAxJV fIdskZshPTQexh5EEHWVoZvoq/wNioUmaS10hnKfXUtI/VVM5xdJHvHIcMp2QuFdIIxr j1R0LOcJsR9pzBPmg+KGuUEuvFKnQAB8yuEYNP96Yp/FBqNDuT6fOmbkh4BkckvEVI+T EGdSLR8TDTcl34qpMi+8jl78e07ruxmsOPkqrJZtr5Zs2dE6s0wGLPsz91a6w9ypNFFU oyDz15s/2JbiHt/B4ahBmrN8wcnbiq5Miux48U5vh1Akkl5c5f9Z/3XPJeE8ri9lB/ov DBjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51CTwvlrtwwBtapWdKV4m7heizkWRhCiX1nrzVzYqLD4Dj83SSnR F5jHoG4GDig/yvhPxV0YnOotZcLB9h1XzE6kqbnx1Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdYvR0VpnHFDiUZfwthJ6q2r/qg7yLbCmG67l2pLc/q+pfXxHwUEIe67F78e3HiCZ8JN0fXCJDp4zHfZ6uBnXos=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:4364:: with SMTP id k91-v6mr1886041uak.46.1536266470463; Thu, 06 Sep 2018 13:41:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <15d3b114-5c04-61c4-8a62-61d8a414143d@nostrum.com> <7D1A35C5-FF09-4F93-ABA8-74D877952EF0@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <7D1A35C5-FF09-4F93-ABA8-74D877952EF0@iii.ca>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2018 13:40:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2dtg5bmU4-WE7FQR976LVTNjasC+p8U98AgLmQ=kdP1OZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Cc: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art@ietf.org>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "clue@ietf.org" <clue@ietf.org>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000409ca8057539e9b8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/H1imMMSJeXdEpYyYvd-vmKMhpUA>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238
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: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 20:41:16 -0000

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:25 PM Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>; wrote:

>
>  It's unlikely we will upgrade to the new ICE until it has real benefits.
>

[BA] Do not worry. Since there are limited benefits in 8445, upgrades will
be slow to arrive at best, except perhaps if they are bundled with Trickle
support.

>
It is doubtful Justin will want to implement the 8445 mechanisms of
> supporting both new and old ICE.
>

[BA] Yes, the 8445 negotiation mechanism never really made sense (though
Trickle negotiation does make sense).

Right here I am watching how the stuff IETF defines will be less relevant
> than the issue of what chrome implements.
>

[BA] Implementations have always mattered. What has changed is that the
IETF seems to be paying less attention to cost/benefit tradeoffs.


>
> On Aug 22, 2018, at 10:58 AM, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; 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 <art@ietf.org>; <art@ietf.org>;. Thank
> you.
>
> /Adam on behalf of the ART Area Directors
>
> ____
> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C238
> _______________________________________________
>
> clue mailing list
> clue@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>