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

[Peter Thatcher <[e-mail]>]

It's not an MMUSIC dependency, but JSEP relies on trickle-ice and
trickle-ice relies on 5245bis, and there are definite technical reasons for
both of those dependencies.  So I don't see how JSEP can avoid depending on
5245bis, at least indirectly.


On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 5:44 AM Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Do you have the names of those drafts to hand?
>
> On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Please note that we have several drafts in MMUSIC that normatively
>> reference 5245bis, and some of those drafts are RTCWeb dependencies AFAIK.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair)
>>
>>
>> On 5/22/17 6:52 PM, Cullen Jennings wrote:
>>
>>> Note that I don't think the timeline is the major issue (it is an issue)
>>> ... they key issue is that 5245bis does not seem to be needed for any
>>> technical reason by WebRTC.
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 18, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Christer Holmberg <
>>>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In general, if people have issues with referencing 5245bis because they
>>>> are afraid it will hold up publication of RTCWEB specs, note that I have
>>>> indicated to the ICE WG chairs that I think 5245bis is getting ready for
>>>> WGLC.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernard
>>>> Aboba
>>>> Sent: 18 May 2017 18:50
>>>> To: Sean Turner <[e-mail]>
>>>> Cc: RTCWeb IETF <[e-mail]>
>>>> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sean said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "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.".
>>>>
>>>> [BA] draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview has a normative reference to
>>>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports which has a normative reference to
>>>> draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness which in turn has a normative reference
>>>> to draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis.  So even if you remove the normative
>>>> reference to RFC5245bis from overview and transports, publication of
>>>> overview will still be held up until publication of RFC 5245bis, which will
>>>> obsolete RFC 5245.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 18, 2017, at 11:35, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On May 18, 2017, at 10:54, Martin Thomson <[e-mail]>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> Whoops:
>>>>
>>>> This shows to me that it was “nice” to get alignment and point to
>>>> 5245bis not that it is necessary to point 5245bis.  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 <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>