Re: [rtcweb] Transport -03, bundling question (Re: Comments on draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-02)

On 03/31/2014 03:54 PM, Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Hi Harald,
>
> The decision in London to make ICE-TCP a "MUST" has not been implemented in the -03 draft
> (I have noticed you have reflected the related TURN-TCP discussion already).
>
> What are your plans for addressing the ICE-TCP decision?

Thanks!

Checking the minutes, I find:

Chairs called a hum between the alternatives:

1) TCP ICE Candidates are MUST implement
2) TCP ICE Candidates are SHOULD/MAY implement
3) TCP ICE Candidates will not be discussed in document. 

The hum indicated very strong support for 1). 

My memory was faulty; I had thought that the same conclusion had applied
for TCP ICE candidates as for TURN ICE candidates. Version -04 will have
this fixed.

>
> Kind regards,
> Uwe 
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext Harald
>> Alvestrand
>> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2014 3:40 PM
>> To: Magnus Westerlund; rtcweb@ietf.org; Harald Alvestrand
>> Subject: [rtcweb] Transport -03, bundling question (Re: Comments on
>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-02)
>>
>> Version -03 is now published. I hope you like it!
>>
>> New outstanding item:
>>
>> I added requirements for implementations to be able to generate both
>> fully bundled (one 5-tuple for everything) and fully unbundled (one
>> 5-tuple for each flow) configurations, and for implementations to be
>> able to tolerate being hit with any combination of bundling schemes.
>>
>> Is there a need to specify at MUST, SHOULD or MAY levels other
>> combinations?
>>
>> Harald
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.