Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"

Ted Hardie <> Thu, 18 October 2012 14:52 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0173621F8797 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.523
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J-S-zUqUpwX7 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 578BB21F878A for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id fc26so9892240vbb.31 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=W7uo1r3cBUY/KKBVzGRiMbnuoVrP9Slq92OkDmHfIyg=; b=ApjjagujXrt9jGI8U0qdvtlOcUHjRQRFf2SBasXEbPxi60P3py9PTgHmmPlqSc3ryl FT/vjloap1W4QZ11JwYTZEpL4Ghqo2NKLAgr7JFN9owGPtNOP8XisPZQk68JezitfyV8 DVXyAEx/08b9FcjlwJMxhISKHBoqa22T7b85fgq0vxY58K8LCMfORSHYsI1p5x2/upgP sj6OoG+5uQApE3rq17aUl4oWilSSe48jbT5MmnbQzkzxulX+1UmXouisnnVWd1SQMnIr SUL58ZG1qQ+P9W6OGIc1K9FgAdB2VzyNocRyYMU/D6tvemaLh2ZvSWU6UCog/AjxPkTe ApLQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with SMTP id dt7mr12718302vdb.118.1350571927474; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:52:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:52:06 -0700
Message-ID: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
To: Matthew Kaufman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:52:09 -0000

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Matthew Kaufman
<> wrote:

> 2)      Are we seriously considering defining the allowed SDP for
> RTCWEB/WEBRTC by referencing an I-D and not an RFC, or are we going to delay
> defining the allowed SDP until trickle ICE is in an RFC, or are we going to
> drop trickle ICE from RTCWEB 1.0?

It's fairly normal for an I-D to reference other I-Ds spawned by the
work.  There's an obvious race condition, and a common set of
responses to that.  Typically, if the I-D making the reference is
ready to advance before the one it refers to is published, there's
discussion at that point just prior to IETF Last Call of whether the
reference is stable enough for a down reference.  If it is not,
there's a reference hold at the RFC publication stage (Bill Fenner has
produced some lovely/scary graphs of what can occur with these holds).

Basically, we don't need to decide which path to take now, but it's
clear that paying attention to the drafts in other working groups  is
a good thing for the advancement of our work.