Re: [rtcweb] Results of call for consensus on ICE transport parameter issue

Found a way to address this with minor changes to the existing PR.

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 5:46 PM Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> Roman, thanks for raising this. I looked into this a bit and it's kind of
> ambiguous; https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7850 uses "profile", "proto",
> and "protocol" (although "protocol" is used most frequently).
>
> JSEP actually uses both profile and protocol to refer to the transport,
> depending on the section; if we make a change here, we should hit all
> usages, which probably means that it is outside of the scope of this
> particular issue.
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Justin,
>>
>> I did provide editorial feedback to the change on github:
>>
>> 1. This document refers to SDP protocol as profile. If you look at the
>> referenced documents that define "profiles" in JSEP, they all refer to them
>> as protocols. Also, in case of SRTP, profile is actually something
>> different and refers to SRTP key parameters.
>>
>> 2. Default candidate does not have profile (or protocol), it has
>> transport, port, and (connection-)address. So each "m=" and "c=" MUST be
>> filled in with port, protocol, and address to match port, transport, and
>> address of the default candidate for the m= section, as described in
>> ice-sip-sdp.
>>
>> Regards,
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:05 PM Christer Holmberg <
>> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Looks good.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Christer
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From: *rtcweb <rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Justin Uberti
>>> <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org <40google..com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
>>> *Date: *Saturday, 16 February 2019 at 3.57
>>> *To: *Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> *Cc: *"rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
>>> *Subject: *Re: [rtcweb] Results of call for consensus on ICE transport
>>> parameter issue
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have updated this PR to incorporate minor feedback that was received
>>> during the consensus call. Those who had feedback, please take another look
>>> and comment on the PR if you are satisfied.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The chairs believe that there was rough consensus among those responding
>>> to make the change in:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/863
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Given the state of the document, it will be the Area Director's call as
>>> to how much of the post-working group approval process must be re-done.
>>> Authors, please wait on his direction before publishing a new version with
>>> this merged.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ted and Sean
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>
>>