IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Mon, 07 August 2017 18:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 63E3E13261B for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=aliax-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 geh3fQ6GStiE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 861FF1323A2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id m85so13220194wma.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:03:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=aliax-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=96W33RpLnE9N5ezlWE5Fo/eAPWjkR5s/HrXybRJ/eQs=; b=BgZevNJuDVpMZeJZsGFkXEYGUgZx26O4s3gYE3uWDD7sWKMihHOL4DkB9YWDoLO9L7 WlTWrM9fkoePG5pgmMMMyTsQb0n954D28AVS95fPaHz+z0xGXaeNFxbTGGs+48Mv71Rc EPlLD2kzwmiDQP5cEEMHjITdZIqjsYfgSEMDVPMpCi47GmKnP/TM4o+ResED7hV6nn0M zzoKM0jGRaiGus0Xc8kSHkl9pXU2Gstmhv+5+iTaQl8tpM7yV+KtO7yTZAevPHD/+v5I 5hpvsMgJm6OgpsOILV93KvlTuQa304pJZuUWaTTAPkcO/x4PeVN7fSMba/a+K0/zTXdG WoVw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=96W33RpLnE9N5ezlWE5Fo/eAPWjkR5s/HrXybRJ/eQs=; b=eG4NT//zuCpdDzD/FWf1AeqGEeVMYXCixZPHzd+WlE1x/xVbjmrYZFzTUKrVdZKV8Z elHK63k7yjs70sqnHwnMkxHcworNxQssIm0kjd10lSnErlPBXtd4ffmv12mxOyaK6/hX muTBOQJzxbF4VnQsTaQigFWr7oWuWrsABlBwA0Tx//gl9kL6EKhUbtoEd8WWmby1unyy +Lmd36it7SNW8CNhkziipM0RsxNC/HbLGcK0ArUBmMgEXqlWB+EN0UmKVyknxYkOTTf6 RubzmPm438Nw/xWJ8on0wVzqU/XwVNuixq4gg3BKGOYlzgQk3mAZdHVXngYvqCSU2Rg3 FWoQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gQQ2bOadQ3hLgoskcdVycuFflyBFwCgXhKxBQ0wT6eDk4uLy5u rsv9dBZDRt5G74H3bIrLYWV2KC9bvq3imEc=
X-Received: by 10.80.147.91 with SMTP id n27mr1738228eda.84.1502129024118; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.80.152.129 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CCB2093@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
References: <CALiegf=_3XV9NnEzi4e6Tb=d5KiqpjtH09grrEzZvWrbaDOcxw@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CCB17B5@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <CALiegf=_W=ma9w0o6J9sa6fAfNLw0Zc7d9nMb+nOs6cS-9C5QQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAK35n0Zph3cWjkmP3Usep6QZLaCxSqe2wof0FsAjrkcx9s5QUg@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegf=4vV9wxXKE+GQCd_34ocVQvHXpYLCjXFkeCupBuWn8nA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CCB2093@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 20:03:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfkq74UzTHvwpTRYJbYk+6fVxLMuc1uTa_bbZsXb+TFGGQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/L73OtWaSaxJNrAiL52buTcrJrdM>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Replacing a=extmap mapping in re-offer, is it legal?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 18:03:48 -0000

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Christer Holmberg
<christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Taylor's explanation makes sense. But, in this case:
>
> 1) Re-using the same value with a new mapping should be an explicit MUST NOT
>
> 2) The re-offer should be rejected

Hi Christer, I'm lost. If Taylor's explanation is ok, why 1) and 2)?

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email