Re: [rtcweb] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> >>So, if the changes done in 5245bis aren't needed, why are we working on
> 5245bis to begin with??? We did we spend all that time on modifying Ta
> etc???
> >
> >I don't think anyone is saying that 5245 bis isn't a good thing, merely
> that one can implement JSEP and trickle without reading it.
>
> This isn't about JSEP and trickle, it's about rtcweb-overview- which is
> supposed to give some overview of what people need to implement.
>

Yes, and rtcweb-overview references 5245-bis:

1. Directly
2. Transitively through other documents, which are primarily JSEP and
trickle.

And my point is that to implement those other documents, you need not
implement
5245-bis.


So, *IF* we decide to reference RFC 5245 in rtcweb-overview, I think that
> we at least should indicate that some dependencies might require 5245bis,
> and refer to individual dependencies for details. That way we can progress
> rtcweb-overview, but still keep the door open for 5245bis where/if it's
> needed.
>

That just seems like kicking the can down the road. To the best of my
knowledge,
there is no technical reason why an rtcweb implementation needs to know
about
5245-bis (whatever the structure of the normative references in the
documents
happens to be). Are you aware of such a reason?

-Ekr


> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On 13 May 2017, at 16.42, Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > OK, so let me try to give some really clear guidance here ... if you are
> writing a draft that does not need to normatively depend on another draft,
> it should not normatively depended on that draft.
> >
> > I really doubt anyone is going to argue with that so lets make it so.
> >
> >> On May 13, 2017, at 1:54 AM, Christer Holmberg <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> As co-chair of a number of the dependencies, we have been discussing
> what to reference a number of times, and we have also changed the
> references. We can't keep changing back and forth.
> >>
> >> In addition, I don't think WG X can decide what the drafts of WG Y
> reference. There needs to be a collaborative decision.
> >>
> >> "We also assumed that some new work was going to require changes in ICE
> but as that work went progressed, we largely figured out ways to make it
> work with existing ICE implementations."
> >>
> >> Is this "discovery" documented somewhere?
> >>
> >> "If trickle ice actually gets done before 5245bis, and it does not
> depend on any 5245bis features, then clearly is should be changed to just
> depend on 5245."
> >>
> >> First, we need to agree on whether trickle depends on 5245bis features
> or not.
> >>
> >> Second, as co-author of 5245bis, I have asked the chairs to initiate
> the road towards WGLC, so I would hope both 5245bis and trickle-ice could
> be done more or less at the same time.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Christer
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Cullen Jennings [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >> Sent: 13 May 2017 01:55
> >> To: Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>; Christer Holmberg <
> [e-mail]>
> >> Cc: Sean Turner <[e-mail]>; The IESG <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; RTCWeb IETF <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> >>
> >>
> >> Let me try and answer with the caveat that I may get this wrong and
> need to be corrected by my co-chairs...
> >>
> >> TL;DR - The chairs recommend changing the ref in overview to point at
> 5245 instead of 5245-bis
> >>
> >>
> >> here is the longer version....
> >>
> >> First a side note on how we got here. Some of the reasons we set up
> dependencies  like they are is that many years ago we made guess about what
> order work would get completed on and, shockingly, some predictions of
> standards developments timelines were less than perfect. We also assumed
> that some new work was going to require changes in ICE but as that work
> went progressed, we largely figured out ways to make it work with existing
> ICE implementations.
> >>
> >> We are confident that overview does not actually depend on anything in
> 5245-bis but instead just depends on 5245.
> >>
> >> Next lets discuss trickle-ice. The WebRTC set of specs currently
> normatively depends on trickle ICE. There is some questions if trickle ICE
> might depend on 5245-bis. Some of the trickle ICE  authors do not think it
> does. One of the authors said the chairs asked them to ref 5245 instead of
> 5245bis as both tickle ICE and 5245bis would be done around the same time.
> In general, the webrtc chairs would prefer to make the WebRTC dependency
> cluster as small as possible. If trickle ice actually gets done before
> 5245bis, and it does not depend on any 5245bis features, then clearly is
> should be changed to just depend on 5245. The WG responsible for 5245bis
> and trickle ICE can figure out what they want to do as both theses drafts
> progress. Given there is a strong possibility that trickle ice will only
> reference 5245, we think it would be better if overview did not bring
> 5245bis into the WebRTC dependency cluster. If on the other hand, trickle
> ICE does end up depending on 5245bis, there is no harm, and no need to
> change overview to point at 5245.
> >>
> >> There are other drafts that are normative dependencies of JSEP and the
> WebRTC cluster that also point at 5245bis. When we consider the technical
> things these drafts need, it seems likely they can also reference 5245
> instead of 5245bis. For example draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness,
> draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp, draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation,
> and draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports (which is with the RFC Editor). The
> argument for the others is roughly the same as it is with trickle ICE.
> >>
> >> Cullen (without review from my co-chairs but trying to represent what
> we discussed on our chair call)
> >>
> >>
> >> PS - if you are trying to figure out some of the dependencies for the
> WebRTC cluster, you might find https://datatracker.ietf.org/
> doc/draft-jennings-rtcweb-deps/?include_text=1 useful but it is not 100%
> accurate.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On May 11, 2017, at 7:43 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Question for the chairs.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Christer Holmberg <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> What is the status regarding this?
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Christer
> >>>
> >>>> On 26/04/17 06:02, "Sean Turner" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Apr 23, 2017, at 14:44, Christer Holmberg
> >>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> ----
> >>>>>> DISCUSS:
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> ----
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your citation to ICE is to 5245-bis, but at least the JSEP editor
> >>>>>> consensus was that WebRTC depended on 5245, so this needs to be
> >>>>>> resolved one way or the other.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Keep in mind that, no matter what draft-rtcweb-overview and
> >>>>> draft-rtcweb-jsep explicitly say, both specs reference 5245bis
> >>>>> *IMPLICITLY*, e.g., via draft-mmusic-bundle, draft-ice-trickle
> >>>>> etc... As I have indicated in the past, it would cause confusion to
> reference both.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, I think we shall reference 5245-bis everywhere (I also thought
> >>>>> we already decided no that in the past)-
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Christer
> >>>>
> >>>> /* bike shed alert:
> >>>> /*
> >>>> /* Assuming you¹re of the mind that a bis/updates draft is
> >>>> /* signaling to all implementors of the original RFC that the
> >>>> /* intention is that all implementations be updated then it¹s
> >>>> /* a bit more than implicit.
> >>>>
> >>>> spt
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>