IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Thu, 18 May 2017 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.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 81579129AD2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 08:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.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 zr5htd7OwWOZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 08:40:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x22b.google.com (mail-io0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22b]) (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 5AF94129B05 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 08:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id f102so30695203ioi.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 08:35:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Z2egWPjGX34bLF9rO0wocGUyLsla9CP2cJdW24WeUbw=; b=U0VeMYOZQpi8ZWDl6E40dBbZeTYkFXigYxDFOXJUz3WqeOriG04NP0tPR7VWrjRlI4 A963o8GpcYWgNpm5hsAtddFwjM2iEE48eU6e193wi8gEj4qy3hCs5aU/WYnCAod/HI82 1LYXuYn0mgdo77upl20INooblFSdELzmwQMwE=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Z2egWPjGX34bLF9rO0wocGUyLsla9CP2cJdW24WeUbw=; b=JPJiDWsyml/HXxpSEofsfUVSCptx1sClQeHOa1S72YD4qYyYV1y2vNThmKr9Vgl5/y jWqzN/byVJUceHZxi1qNC7f7AJ1V13z6K4m7m0IGiUksHc1ou9LI/Doth45JHMIil4bp rQ3rXr+wkbsI6rgi/o/ofhm+r+hFvheZzTpfhUI8csVYy3jl2qLmwfuu9hdU8RF+bN57 YlX+9dd7s9Dt+QaHRwy3yaplDubOCGr+g1CDqkQ5lDFoXldvUdxpIe96EU6MIvDnRxnS uY2nOb6cB2KYIpoct4LYQIBvO3sLX8DpHVqlOPqit0/1jEUzc+tqEIJp9frS5iVsodcZ bvNA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcDHgZ8uGxTn0/xSfZkF6osbG77Z9vnKWZy9JSI2ERBrI+mFwWBx n8SyehcQwvjwl2nM
X-Received: by 10.107.130.25 with SMTP id e25mr4800321iod.31.1495121721728; Thu, 18 May 2017 08:35:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [5.5.33.138] (vpn.snozzages.com. [204.42.252.17]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i73sm1863442ioi.55.2017.05.18.08.35.20 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 18 May 2017 08:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnVhS07gUdw+MJT8dLH89=Y1HBhrrwh6wTGs5gyy8O5DWw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 11:35:15 -0400
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <3CC0A416-5A81-46FA-886C-5F43BA5193A6@sn3rd.com>
References: <4C1F0FE7-F7E6-47F7-922D-057E4E7FA466@sn3rd.com> <CABkgnnVhS07gUdw+MJT8dLH89=Y1HBhrrwh6wTGs5gyy8O5DWw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/LPT_AJZqnL6q9eIy5DI1t-dgmv4>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?
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: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:40:54 -0000

> On May 18, 2017, at 10:54, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> 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.

> 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 <sean@sn3rd.com> 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/GWdXRIO68FZwVtzzqugnELKeaY8
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email