Re: [rtcweb] Call for consensus on ICE transport parameter issue (February 15).

I support this change, solely to avoid confusion for implementers caused by
different guidance from JSEP and ice-sip-sdp.

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:53 AM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:

> As an individual, I support this change.  While I agree that the benefit
> is currently theoretical, I think having the breadcrumbs for what to do
> when it ceases to be theoretical is worth the effort.
>
> Ted
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:42 AM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Over the the past few weeks, the working group has discussed whether to
>> adopt a change to JSEP which would adjust how the ICE proto line transport
>> parameters are populated in certain mid-session offers where the final
>> candidate is a TCP candidate.  Outside of the extensive working group
>> discussion on the mailing list, participants may also wish to review the
>> follow issue:
>>
>> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/854
>>
>> and the conversations related to these two pull requests:
>>
>> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/862
>> and
>> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/863
>>
>> The chairs believe that there is technical consensus that this proposed
>> change would not materially affect JSEP-only exchanges, since this
>> parameter is ignored in those.
>>
>> The remaining technical issues are:
>>
>> * whether making one of these changes would improve interoperability
>> between WebRTC and non-WebRTC clients which use SIP/SDP.
>>
>> * whether the additional complexity in tracking the use of UDP vs. TCP
>> and populating the parameter accordingly is onerous or unwarranted for
>> WebRTC implementations.
>>
>> After reviewing the discussion to date, the chairs believe that there is
>> rough consensus for the first point, though there is also broad agreement
>> that the benefit of this change is currently theoretical, since no existing
>> WebRTC browser implementation has relevant code.
>>
>> On the second point, the chairs believe that there is no consensus yet
>> demonstrated.  Because we believe that this is in part because the actual
>> proposal has not been entirely clear, and the complexity is therefore
>> somewhat hard to gauge, the chairs wish to make a specific call for
>> consensus.
>>
>> Does the working group approve the change in the following PR:
>>
>> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/863 ?
>>
>> Working group participants who have objections to the change are asked to
>> specify whether they believe it has a technical fault, whether they object
>> on the basis of its complexity, or whether they have other issues related
>> to the change they need to raise.
>>
>> The chairs are already aware of the objection of Eric Rescorla on the
>> basis of complexity, and will factor it into the review.
>>
>> Please send comments by February 15th, 2019.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Ted Hardie and Sean Turner
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>