Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?

Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com> Thu, 18 May 2017 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11764129B60 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83Y6DYmQ25WG for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-x233.google.com (mail-io0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E0B412EB45 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io0-x233.google.com with SMTP id p24so32439068ioi.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:50:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=yiG9M+RiypJP9HQHgiFBsQGSzRJ4ZXB6qzwvhBWjbQE=; b=gPFpLx6rgwyUiXN+xJeQ3WEV0j1RphhneyE1hWGHnd289O7tGWZ2kZji8nIIJVGLmi mlFtf4AptqaTDsKUnnVik5ajouEDxg+P4DMtxaV12qTqnSrUlMZiAm851iu1S6fDnFNc OtwnnLHGGuHkTv1NFrsO5vEffBVWkJE2dLaSwWZpuLteQz4rqh2JmANmxl7ShgMGh3M1 c5pLxDj+tJ+V5QBKRAoHqvFeYhyP3D7vkxoKnc0acbgR6bIojMI9+XXoyXK6vkz6SXVZ eVB8u8k4VxSUg2E6nDUhlCBW+cItWJSMr69NCkN7xiwpalbCAigaUjOtz4QSXv1yT91N XgbA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=yiG9M+RiypJP9HQHgiFBsQGSzRJ4ZXB6qzwvhBWjbQE=; b=tIsbEqjN3ZGddyGZx9HoROauqmts8sx/WMneYKyfuiPIHrYyZwA86nLeSIPNdQbsrx STbSANr2aIFJ7aOMQXOP257wZ+Xt/oyfXJEF34xbpn+CP3k7h+++EuUxv/0hjo3GUVqO Egzw4LcKGjmL/RVYbyvAIZwWTA/URC0mODQ6A6rrCHC2ShOR3VygtanFoHpQp0g5nDSv bM642b+6smAEEgWwquihE5T4sMh1rGFcVJ4BlceaBvhcklvoW35xKo0p7Fg9l/Wf6zTQ G17vd+LpDZj3qE3mcPc2o/wemtdcCwZWP48B8iqbXIDse71s3JQn2A7fCMXKkrT59i6x Gp7Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcACXMIkv6nmzZBBdxKnOaHTF4XAX7FXF/l+bj8pt4FunTup7I9I w0h7M19rZ3lIgSGtUgHVZIsV9YrT/qBLqGU=
X-Received: by 10.107.35.75 with SMTP id j72mr5218098ioj.180.1495126234640; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.107.28.145 with HTTP; Thu, 18 May 2017 09:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6BD64B92-4DE2-4BAD-A23D-65E8F52E13B0@sn3rd.com>
References: <4C1F0FE7-F7E6-47F7-922D-057E4E7FA466@sn3rd.com> <CABkgnnVhS07gUdw+MJT8dLH89=Y1HBhrrwh6wTGs5gyy8O5DWw@mail.gmail.com> <3CC0A416-5A81-46FA-886C-5F43BA5193A6@sn3rd.com> <6BD64B92-4DE2-4BAD-A23D-65E8F52E13B0@sn3rd.com>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard.aboba@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 09:50:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOW+2duBrC3f=-XaKFvMmyQ_JU72eTsES-UZDYPjQg6yZhab8Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1141b3621c5a1e054fcf340f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/mv9OcAA756RydGbBiB33CZWyPI0>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 16:56:26 -0000

Sean said:

"draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports: Likewise, the chairs believer that a
reference to RFC 5245 is also appropriate in transports.  This draft was
changed in version -17 to refer to 5245bis.  From GH: "The drafts -bundle
and -dualstack-fairness both depend on 5245bis according to Cullen's chart
in 'rtcweb-deps-13', and we already have a normative dependency from
-transport on these.  So consistency of the bundle is improved by
referencing 5245bis.".

[BA] draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview has a normative reference to
draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports which has a normative reference to draft-
ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness which in turn has a normative reference to
draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis.  So even if you remove the normative reference
to RFC5245bis from overview and transports, publication of overview will
still be held up until publication of RFC 5245bis, which will obsolete RFC
5245.

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:

>
> > On May 18, 2017, at 11:35, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On May 18, 2017, at 10:54, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm really confused about the statement regarding -transports.  You
> >> say that 5245 is sufficient, then follow with justification for the
> >> opposite position.
> >
> > Sorry the change from 5425 to 5245bis was included in the latest version
> using that rationale.  This shows to me that it was “nice” to get alignment
> and point to 5245bis not that it is necessary to point 5245.  I.e., it’d be
> just fine to switch it back to referring to 5245.
>
> Whoops:
>
> This shows to me that it was “nice” to get alignment and point to 5245bis
> not that it is necessary to point 5245bis.  I.e., it’d be just fine to
> switch it back to referring to 5245.
>
> >> If we have as large a dependency as bundle that refers to 5245bis,
> >> then we are taking a transitive dependency on 5245bis and might as
> >> well refer to that.
> >>
> >> A lot of this comes down to what bundle says.  Now, I see that bundle
> >> depends on both 5245 and its -bis, which seems pretty inconsistent.  I
> >> don't immediately see any strong reason for bundle to refer to the
> >> -bis, though it does refer to the ice-sip-sdp draft, which might be
> >> sufficiently implicated as to make the change necessary.  We should
> >> ask Christer to confirm this.
> >>
> >> I think that if we clarify that either way, then the reference in
> >> -dualstack-fairness seems less of a concern; that document doesn't
> >> need to reference 5245bis, though it would be nice if it could.
> >
> > Exactly!
> >
> > spt
> >
> >> On 18 May 2017 at 10:12, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> >>> ekr’s discuss on draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview has raised whether drafts
> should refer to RFC 5245 or draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis.  We only need to
> normatively refer to 5245bis if a technical part of 5245bis needs to be
> read and implemented in order to implement the referring draft.  We have 7
> drafts that refer to RFC 5245 and 2  that refer to draft-ietf-rfc5245bis:
> >>>
> >>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview: As noted in my response to ekr’s discuss
> position [0], the chairs believe that the reference to “ICE” in the ICE
> Agent definition should be to RFC 5245.
> >>>
> >>> draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports: Likewise, the chairs believer that a
> reference to RFC 5245 is also appropriate in transports.  This draft was
> changed in version -17 to refer to 5245bis.  From GH: "The drafts -bundle
> and -dualstack-fairness both depend on 5245bis according to Cullen's chart
> in 'rtcweb-deps-13', and we already have a normative dependency from
> -transport on these.  So consistency of the bundle is improved by
> referencing 5245bis."
> >>>
> >>> spt
> >>>
> >>> [0] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/
> GWdXRIO68FZwVtzzqugnELKeaY8
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
>