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

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:25 PM Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>. Thank
> you.
>
> /Adam on behalf of the ART Area Directors
>
> ____
> [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/cluster_info.php?cid=C238
> _______________________________________________
>
> clue mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/clue
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>