From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
CC: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>,
 "rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org" <rtcweb-chairs@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org"
 <rtcweb@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview@ietf.org"
 <draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on
 draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHSu1nlcZL8BStkfUysDoOyMAqI5qHTV0EQgAODp4CAGBVbgA==
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 07:44:00 +0000
Message-ID: <D539F225.1C532%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <149285978295.25905.7347383325486705546.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4CB805F3@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se>
 <15D737F9-2F65-45C5-AA26-946910B4030F@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <15D737F9-2F65-45C5-AA26-946910B4030F@sn3rd.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.2.170228
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <3C4F8E4392172947910720694E289526@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/nl0oB-fcoeDwj8CXO_DCs1ulFZA>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Eric Rescorla's Discuss on
 draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Precedence: list

Hi,

What is the status regarding this?

Regards,

Christer

On 26/04/17 06:02, "Sean Turner" <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:

>
>> On Apr 23, 2017, at 14:44, Christer Holmberg
>><christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> Hi,
>>=20
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>=20
>>> Your citation to ICE is to 5245-bis, but at least the JSEP editor
>>>consensus was that WebRTC depended on 5245, so this needs to be
>>>resolved one way or the other.
>>=20
>> Keep in mind that, no matter what draft-rtcweb-overview and
>>draft-rtcweb-jsep explicitly say, both specs reference 5245bis
>>*IMPLICITLY*, e.g., via draft-mmusic-bundle, draft-ice-trickle etc... As
>>I have indicated in the past, it would cause confusion to reference both.
>>=20
>> So, I think we shall reference 5245-bis everywhere (I also thought we
>>already decided no that in the past)-
>>=20
>> Regards,
>>=20
>> Christer
>
>/* bike shed alert:
>/*=20
>/* Assuming you=B9re of the mind that a bis/updates draft is
>/* signaling to all implementors of the original RFC that the
>/* intention is that all implementations be updated then it=B9s
>/* a bit more than implicit.
>
>spt
>