[rtcweb] 5G standards advocating WebRTC protocol violations?

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

It's come to my attention that there's apparently some 5G spec that says 
"Use WebRTC datachannel, but don't bother with this ICE stuff".

The exact quote is below.

Now I don't mind saying "don't use TURN/STUN servers" - that's a 
configuration option on the WEBRTC API, and anyone can choose to not do 
that - but I do mind leaving out ICE. An ICE-supporting implementation 
won't interwork properly with an implementation that doesn't support ICE.

Is it possible for the IETF to say "please don't make incompatible 
changes to our protocols without asking us"? (that's the version where I 
try not to use expletives).

Or is it possible that this is all a misunderstanding, and the 5G folks 
actually meant to require peer-to-peer ICE, but just wrote it wrongly?

Or did I misunderstand what the WG's intent was, and should just suck it 
up and interoperate with non-ICE-supporting endpoints?

Harald

--------- Spec reference quote ----------

1. Spec
NG.129 - 5G Data Channel White Paper  (CR1001)

8.2.1Data channel APIs
The data channel application consists of the device side logic and the 
server side logic.
Both should use standardized APIs that need to be agreed by the industry.
W3C WebRTC1.0 data channel API specification is suggested as the 
preferred IMS data channel API. RTCPeerConnection ,
RTCDataChannel object, the  callbacks need to be supported .
Only data channel API related definitions  are used and IMS data channel 
API is not allowed to use WebRTC media.
ICE/STUN/TURN are also not required.

# Reference
3GPP TS 26.114 IMS_Multimedia Telephony Media handling and interaction
GSMA NG.114 IMS Profile for Voice, Video and Messaging over 5GS
GSMA NG.129_5G DATA CHANNEL