Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] [Ice] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

[Heather Flanagan <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for copying me in, Adam. I definitely agree that this level of 
change is significant enough that it can't be handled in AUTH48. But, 
better it be right than fast!


-Heather

On 10/1/18 1:27 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
> [dropping some DLs]
>
> I think this is probably a day of work, but will probably take 2 weeks 
> to author and get approval for.
>
> If we go down this path, I would also suggest taking the two pending 
> PRs in JSEP, which will also impact the examples.
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/849
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/850
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:23 PM Justin Uberti <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     I think this is probably a day of work, but will probably take 2
>     weeks to author and get approval for.
>
>     If we go down this path, I would also suggest taking the two
>     pending PRs in JSEP, which will also impact the examples.
>     https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/849
>     https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/850
>
>     On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:17 PM Adam Roach <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>         On 9/27/18 6:20 PM, Justin Uberti wrote:
>         > I agree with Peter. Chrome's implementation is already
>         closer to 8445
>         > than 5245, so I don't see any issues associated with
>         snapping this
>         > cluster to 8445 (aside from the work involved).
>         >
>         > On that topic, note that JSEP will need a few more changes
>         than just
>         > the addition of the 8445 reference and note; the examples
>         will have to
>         > be updated, as will the logic regarding generation of offers
>         and
>         > answers and their parsing (to deal with the new ice-option).
>         These
>         > changes will be modest but probably will need to be done by
>         the authors.
>
>
>         If I read what you're saying correctly, it sounds like you're
>         talking
>         about changes that are significant enough that we'll have to
>         put JSEP
>         through IETF last call and through the IESG again. That being
>         the case,
>         and the rest of the cluster being so close to done, I'd really
>         prefer to
>         see this done very soon, if such changes are required. When do
>         you
>         believe such an update could be available?
>
>         I've copied the RFC Series Editor on this note for her awareness.
>
>         /a
>