Re: [rtcweb] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12

Christer Holmberg <> Mon, 09 October 2017 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B6211346B1; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:39:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zhh0u9LQTfBJ; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:39:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE8291346A3; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-bddff7000000268d-2f-59dba63aaa79
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3E.1D.09869.A36ABD95; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:39:22 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:39:22 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Harald Alvestrand <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12
Thread-Index: AQHTQRqIopdqNKi4M0G7+rZLE/Y/d6LblpKA
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:39:21 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail-A9D1D8EB-E2F1-4B1D-9714-5284422E70D4"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7t67VstuRBsd3WVsc6+tis/h2odZi 7b92dgdmjysTrrB6LFnykymAKYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr48W9NraCKZkVa3/tYmxg7EjrYuTg kBAwkVh5QrCLkYtDSOAIo8TZ71/YIZyFjBKfDpxiBSliE7CQ6P6n3cXIySEioCPxcH8DE4jN LOAmcf9JByuILSzgKNHxpJ0ZosZJovfRTVYI20hidcNqsDEsAioSRzaVg4R5BewlPtzfxw5i Cwk4SGz/+58FpIQTaEznckGQMKOAmMT3U2ugNolL3HoyH8yWEBCReHjxNBuELSrx8vE/VpCL mQUmM0pMf9PGDjFfUOLkzCcsExiFZyHpn4WsbhaSullAu5kF4iWm/DSBqJeX2P52DjOErSmx v3s5C4StKDGl+yE7hK0h0fltIiumuLXEjF8H2SBsU4nXRz8yIqtZwMizilG0OLW4ODfdyFgv tSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwdg9u+a27g3H1a8dDjAIcjEo8vPnttyOFWBPLiitzDzGqAM15tGH1 BUYplrz8vFQlEd4nTUBp3pTEyqrUovz4otKc1OJDjNIcLErivA77LkQICaQnlqRmp6YWpBbB ZJk4OKUaGLmKFm1LOnfN/+SFJHfp1VOawlYumb2DofLKytTj/yXZoua+0121z3JHlqzKm129 B3Rjl2/pWD7T4HpD3r4rUwS4Dud7dx1Mra6NjPR2bbDl3e1T/7Jql6rIwoUvqw7oXfg2Pab7 vWBy8bSrIo77byx/cdCer/tgn/Om/q1bGH0XHvn2/sBObTMlluKMREMt5qLiRACJ3mlX5QIA AA==
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:39:28 -0000

Hi Harald,

Thank you VERY much! :)

I do agree that the document could still be improved, and if I had the time and cycles... But, we need to draw the line somewhere, and that’s why it is important that people read the document in case there is something they think still needs to be fixed.



Sent from my iPhone

> On 9 Oct 2017, at 19.20, Harald Alvestrand <>; wrote:
> I have read through draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12 - both as a generic
> reviewer and with the perspective of "does this do what RTCWEB requires".
> I believe this document is good enough to publish, but could be improved
> somewhat (usually, all documents can).
> Most important points:
> * The protocol has been designed and revised to be usable with non-media
> data, but the introduction and abstract do not reflect this. Expunging
> the media bias from the body of the document is probably not worth it,
> but the intro and abstract should mention it.
> * Security considerations should mention the problem that ICE reveals
> addresses that might otherwise remain hidden, and that this is a privacy
> concern.
> * The document has removed all the SDP specific parts (good), but the
> requirements it places on the negotiation mechanism aren’t collectively
> documented anywhere. A section describing this would help comprehension
> for people developing signalling protocols for use with ICE.
> * The definition of “component” talks about a component having one
> address. I believe that in current usage, it should be defined to have
> an address pair. (non-symmetric RTP is dead).
> The rest of my suggested changes are nits, I think.
> I enclose the full text of my review as PDF; apart from the stuff above,
> I don't think those comments needs much WG discussion. Editor: Please
> raise issues if you think some do need it!
> Hope this is helpful.
> Harald
> <ICE BIS rfc5245bis-12 review.pdf>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list