IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com> Mon, 07 August 2017 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <deadbeef@google.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 6267A132331 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:21:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 Tpn22Dr0HCNq for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (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 B57871326DF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id a18so7587751qta.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=MXezUAWtNkwjGJwFYkjvmtjzVG5De6cFmjg2rPyQp0k=; b=h4AlJwHOLpHN9rCxFEYDdOPBNSTh26MGwRv2fF36r5mFq3zuIII1I1BgCpkmYw6cWZ U6H8Gi1H97qKDJgwvM5tBp6V86Rh+g+f86Mo/zFYkIE+RAmJBpUdJfeToAqEhT+JQDGy rwT0FoAF3ygAzXjJultuJjVigY/foLPLwJ+nmZhg+GtOwkyA3y/iBVlQURYNsf856GxW 6P3NIWuq4GWVK8G7lDohQr/WGw+9uxBhkr7YRaO2SoevHi2aXDImfgJE22avab1WivF2 gBqa7B/b9inu1TGJbcV4FrfiPI88AmR4n8vGMO4kNtFnW52ciD3aDtBnEkwdg+8syeNL ItVg==
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; bh=MXezUAWtNkwjGJwFYkjvmtjzVG5De6cFmjg2rPyQp0k=; b=moMS3pYhu8pAsaSwvda73veWdKSMPRZRjX9Z5hdya5PbHmCDXzo/JZ3AaN3Ey+kZOZ w3SRtIjS5IfZBUiCp6Sl8D8MgM99lfCUUX9kUZtF7R75hTJwR9RaFrr4XNgaXTSRhQJc IgOF4HXm5Yy/QMmGuaMeq8GhKAEdtjJTCJAzQ9uAAx8dQfsLZ4Lc5yWQHS+y0z1y7Nrv FHb5If+NhFgLvGvZ2qbQy2KJKLiNHULFkF0HHRbu9ZJVyE1SZhPPA7ChdYqKkoo3GpSD pzsRGi9k00PKQe/DzSOTxmS+dvisRpWSNH2A+vo9LYu01qwBg9iEyiIiBl+uf+3dkoOt r10w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5jQqz4FXnS+GGvHJFdoN6vNtryv52tBzi+3aCgGhCVjz6gdAFqC nf88uYRMWo+Gg7so/i4Sv9wJ6kbtMIky
X-Received: by 10.200.52.100 with SMTP id v33mr2143107qtb.67.1502130099810; Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.12.130.163 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Aug 2017 11:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CCB2129@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> <CALiegfkq74UzTHvwpTRYJbYk+6fVxLMuc1uTa_bbZsXb+TFGGQ@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CCB2129@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
From: Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 11:21:39 -0700
Message-ID: <CAK35n0YePVGVm0WBwHNA3AC4A1HtvmDg-WrjC_hzqNY0vv3fpA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1143b9280203c305562debe9"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Ta9zWAIa6sxJ2Q0OzROPkIKkmXc>
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 18:21:42 -0000

Christer and I are in agreement. He's just saying "there should be a MUST
NOT in the spec."

And there is:

Identifiers values in the valid range MUST NOT be altered (remapped).
>
>

On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 11:06 AM, 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)?
>
> Maybe I was unclear :)
>
> Taylor described why re-using a value for a new mapping doesn't work. I
> think that should be explicitly described, and the text should say MUST NOT
> re-use value for new mapping (hence 1).
>
> Second, IF an offerer still tries to re-use a value for a new mapping, the
> text should say that the receiver MUST discard the offer (hence 2).
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email