IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] 5G standards advocating WebRTC protocol violations?

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 03 November 2021 13:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.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 13ADF3A12B0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 06:10:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 LA3oEOswjEGZ for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 06:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ot1-x32d.google.com (mail-ot1-x32d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::32d]) (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 49CA83A13EF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Nov 2021 06:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ot1-x32d.google.com with SMTP id p11-20020a9d4e0b000000b0055a5741bff7so3408447otf.2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 06:10:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rw79+cheC9r3ol7LBEbT9YTPSBAAxeVhPhK+7kg7iAk=; b=IAujfvyKlJPWkv1idZjBuHjBkm+9+KYMEQPr7Ro8A20AUxUCBMnRz+N/2EG5+6Bs7l WeNNVDy7CaZoWovtuvL21eanf3Ozbt7NYlsGGD08Jv8fdKYZ9cO8+JfljfitMwkLhWvp RCPmb6hP2tIe2YcT9Ar2Pe+/AOEGHS1kJU3tZmTm09gzxPx2cY7dQD0Xkn+Oi2uGQLrz ECTLPh8xGt9WRC/ItLmURwqx/H9NSKhlFd2mDPQLapvacVqs+JD5LXHAeTYmNyNo+oew cwL11hewVNP7QKYo4nxqERneQHq0tO+38DLWxawh0gFa2qbF1cPnIACsge51FIeUw6FQ kYcQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rw79+cheC9r3ol7LBEbT9YTPSBAAxeVhPhK+7kg7iAk=; b=3yCoeuAMjVEiPTQuiWiLCMjnpI6BNaVhrWy09uWf5I2cSpRDxQBtwfhziixcRm6LzK nLL/sRkkgi/0fJcy5r26u63FqBr0CzqE6h6Uc9yin2nqJ/XNXUjZat396i4gvgx3TmaW zAW8Aao4v3Sz1SWGR47yID8/GNrbIrgG3jIGbbPB22JJRH6AjKiJRpTGu2xgRw4aJu+4 afvf1dhmSuWeT+CH4+KIG+VznUAzeOn6AEfV+6c2GXnX3QHjsACAwouBtCTQr5wWkF/v zfYKe2k7T/Q05C1T5yYKwv3qXcbHHbOlJrCGFOt7n3y5vJj91iGMnqXy4qjHRwErKgLz pO8w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533beM5yh7NlVHN6jTbFNsCkswaqXJAg5vEeZpgkneR1lyF7LCbg ZzAWv2I5h2g4APEA3FT6GLQKfKwuZwOIXNGb4MyXI103mi8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwEW/fitVMT9QnfOVMp49OKn2CjTQEhDm0LIrxF+W3ywEVoCGQVY2Cot9nLWNh9fqxL1u0jMxmaV+vx/3G6umc=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:6c8a:: with SMTP id c10mr33332752otr.338.1635945038482; Wed, 03 Nov 2021 06:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <ca569473-975c-b11d-eaa6-4aa215c8c7c9@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <ca569473-975c-b11d-eaa6-4aa215c8c7c9@alvestrand.no>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 13:10:12 +0000
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMA1GfFY_Uemhvu7PZNj-rJGUMyxYcMbS4_vVu5MTq75Bg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e41cdf05cfe2221d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Zv8YIAvk29ohfYA4JanvN8V9FNg>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] 5G standards advocating WebRTC protocol violations?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 03 Nov 2021 13:10:44 -0000

Hi Harald,

It is definitely possible for us to send liaison statements via the
appropriate channel, but I am missing some context.  Can you provide a
citation to the document from which the excerpt comes?  (It appears to be
labeled a white paper, so the first step may be to confirm that its
description and the underlying specs say the same thing.)

regards,

Ted Hardie

On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 11:37 AM Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

> It's come to my attention that there's apparently some 5G spec that says
> "Use WebRTC datachannel, but don't bother with this ICE stuff".
>
> The exact quote is below.
>
> Now I don't mind saying "don't use TURN/STUN servers" - that's a
> configuration option on the WEBRTC API, and anyone can choose to not do
> that - but I do mind leaving out ICE. An ICE-supporting implementation
> won't interwork properly with an implementation that doesn't support ICE.
>
> Is it possible for the IETF to say "please don't make incompatible
> changes to our protocols without asking us"? (that's the version where I
> try not to use expletives).
>
> Or is it possible that this is all a misunderstanding, and the 5G folks
> actually meant to require peer-to-peer ICE, but just wrote it wrongly?
>
> Or did I misunderstand what the WG's intent was, and should just suck it
> up and interoperate with non-ICE-supporting endpoints?
>
> Harald
>
> --------- Spec reference quote ----------
>
> 1. Spec
> NG.129 - 5G Data Channel White Paper  (CR1001)
>
> 8.2.1Data channel APIs
> The data channel application consists of the device side logic and the
> server side logic.
> Both should use standardized APIs that need to be agreed by the industry.
> W3C WebRTC1.0 data channel API specification is suggested as the
> preferred IMS data channel API. RTCPeerConnection ,
> RTCDataChannel object, the  callbacks need to be supported .
> Only data channel API related definitions  are used and IMS data channel
> API is not allowed to use WebRTC media.
> ICE/STUN/TURN are also not required.
>
> # Reference
> 3GPP TS 26.114 IMS_Multimedia Telephony Media handling and interaction
> GSMA NG.114 IMS Profile for Voice, Video and Messaging over 5GS
> GSMA NG.129_5G DATA CHANNEL
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email