Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Default proto transport in JSEP

Ted Hardie <> Wed, 28 November 2018 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFA06128A6E; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:01:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bUFIDJTZ8JBo; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:01:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A73EB127B92; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:01:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id b141so23503017oii.12; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:01:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xTbutENY+aEjnfVb8OXvI7PRh4lR0mn90Hq8q++4Y+w=; b=rhcjRKqRp2Y415wBjyJt6RQhsAJJ4Y79OYBxWMDQ2UJ6weACSS5I9bZ+miwcVjY37l Y+ORaotgWujMLRrFKivx+6nAk1/F9lUd2Sl5ikVDUBoOx2J5EDFpNJhSPFEUpzzaoEen M9YQMfUYddnNAxAXellg//3gg/9ephMNrRyWzlTb30hYxAV6SpMUKDjTHZKJ9+PZ8VrW zS0Wm2M5uz5+v+w4mEBozI5iLga3ZtIKdpZzE+XoYYtwR93Vu/tH3QqtxadncvGk1KuK K/Fx+qmqGIbzNmyrxFXHtmeq/zb4NofXFZM6K9JZW/eG03vZxwb0tv99FFc0vaLsVfwM B/ow==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xTbutENY+aEjnfVb8OXvI7PRh4lR0mn90Hq8q++4Y+w=; b=a4oU+ShboLshye72QDk6SLPpZ/nlSadFduF/py/UBSK+RuUQ1+fmUSb+9+fiLEJM5y +0pwVrObad3N1KXJMVTPg4oBD2LInyAg5cqxXFI+EPdV6hARWMuB6Q1R0t3kjwsvlduX kKRq14cgcD5p/tlsZKx575eKr4jn6wT/5u17W3r097Edg2MuQ9SjidHzoCBDvG+VgsvL Z9qb696rj7jrgGJRDCW0AhFCTKmxnrZ1ox81wyZ1qQ8TluYuh8ky4VHg70cAtkVT6isX Vox1fHZYCifNh4fAujY1ZnxchZ23s7CaLeYuAcFpjWfVeqYNoVbQJD7Oy+wZ8iAPKZpO N2uw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gINVJvfmHG7pA/w59W0QR0II2/2VYXl2chvhsP8HLiFjrdvDg7Y YgO1IISIA5CVO1RxFMbraajx01twj8l0DoJq2zCAD2cu
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dEG2XGPsiBxdcdpEnhjb9JtnmojiOx50bqfZ3zVc9Wtc8BEqvky068eFlH6mu8O2Z3j7iEfsolnlg780sanK8=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:4ed8:: with SMTP id c207mr22066297oib.276.1543431662582; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:01:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 11:00:34 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Roman Shpount <>
Cc: Adam Roach <>, RTCWeb IETF <>,
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fbc312057bbe2fbf"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Default proto transport in JSEP
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 19:01:07 -0000

Hi Roman,

The current pull request resolves the 5.1.2 vs. 5.2.2 ambiguity in line
with the discussion here:

and then here:

I understand from your comments on that you disagreed with that
being the final consensus, and it has since been discussed on the list as
Justin suggested in that issue.

At the moment I continue to see only you objecting to the combination of
the current pull and an update to ice-sip-sdp.   Since ice-sip-sdp is in
MMUSIC, not RTCWEB, it's not up to the RTCWEB chairs to call the final
consensus here, but I believe my previous statement on the preference for
RTCWEB remains true.



On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:42 AM Roman Shpount <> wrote:

> Hi Adam,
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:22 PM Adam Roach <> wrote:
>> On 11/28/18 10:57 AM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:38 AM Cullen Jennings <> wrote:
>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 4:46 PM, Roman Shpount <> wrote:
>>>  I suggest to update JSEP section 5.1.2 to match the rest of the
>>> documents to say that "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" proto MUST be used during ICE
>>> restart. When ICE restart is not in progress, "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" proto
>>> MUST be used if default (only) candidate is a UDP candidate and
>>> "TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" proto MUST be used if default (only) candidate is
>>> TCP candidate.
>>> I don’t see any real befits to implementations to this change and I
>>> don’t think the rtcweb consensus was around the currently solution. Do you
>>> see some advantage to implementations to this?
>> This is what every other document related to ICE, including JSEP section
>> 5.2.2 currently specifies. It was also consensus in MMUSIC. I think RTCWEB
>> need a really good reason why it needs to be different.
>> It would probably help clarify things if you quoted the parts of the
>> document that you think are in conflict. I can't find any explicit <proto>
>> field handling in 5.2.2.
>  I have mentioned this already in the previous message, but I guess this
> got lost in the traffic.
> JSEP-25 in section 5.2.2 says (
> Each "m=" and c=" line MUST be filled in with the port, *protocol*, and
> address of the default candidate for the m= section, as described in
> [I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp], Section
> At the same time section 5.1.2 says (
> <>):
> For media m= sections, JSEP implementations MUST support the
> "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" profile specified in [RFC5764], and MUST indicate this
> profile for each media m= line they produce in an offer. For data m=
> sections, implementations MUST support the "UDP/DTLS/SCTP" profile and MUST
> indicate this profile for each data m= line they produce in an offer.
> So, section 5.2.2 says m= line should be filled with currently used
> protocol, which means "TCP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF" or "TCP/DTLS/SCTP" if default
> candidate is TCP based, but section 5.1.2 says it must be "UDP/TLS/RTP/SAVPF"
> or "UDP/DTLS/SCTP", even if default candidate is TCP based. I thought
> that section 5.2.2, since it is more specific, overwrites 5.1.2, which I
> assumed only applies to ICE restart. Authors disagree and want to update
> the document.
>> In terms of changing technical aspects of JSEP: the only reason the
>> document is out of the RFC Editor's queue right now is to address issues
>> arising from rationalizing the reference to RFC 8445 within Cluster 238.
>> This is not an opportunity to re-litigate previously settled consensus
>> decisions. Technical issues such as the one at hand should have been raised
>> during WG development, WG last call, or -- in extremis, since you're a
>> regular RTCWEB participant -- during IETF last call. It's up to the chairs
>> what to allow, but I wouldn't expect anything other than catastrophic flaws
>> to be open for change at this time.
> I am not the one who opened this can of worms. I am fine if the current
> draft version is not changed. This is why I did not comment during the WG
> last call. Draft authors are introducing the new change in
>, which makes JSEP incompatible
> with ice-sip-sdp. I oppose this change. If the group considers that a
> change to clarify things is necessary, I would suggest that section 5.1.2
> should be changed instead to that it only applies during ICE restart, so
> that JSEP is compatible with ice-sip-sdp.
> Regards,
> ______________
> Roman Shpount
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list