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

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Wed, 28 November 2018 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.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 43E27130F97 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:59:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -18.958
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-18.958 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-1.459, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 owZdZq9HO--p for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:59:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x129.google.com (mail-it1-x129.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::129]) (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 ACD31130EBC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:59:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x129.google.com with SMTP id m123-v6so6106424ita.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:59:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ydDp0/zLOurOHL+kCWyHqBS+4FovV1ip3U0FQG/ZpkU=; b=L/6AjEWSJnhJWnyjEAkjofn/qrrhglRnxAU0VTQnnGV8e1V2sWmpFUGM/zH1oEgIes 3Yfkv3tBMyc8SmSK4Sj8RnaJzkwExbpELqAho+RlNfVTaO9AS502od912dkjrfvioGbY azQ32NSFNv11XvXg56nGY4U7xyUPVZHQ+Ly0bK3yiPpcPy/2+HM8NxiordMmVu3yFaQK FtJPLx/Fn8Jy8gDO4i3/vr5dinuLlLno0yFB2jNyLzwtcCW7Hr0hudaZ+H91sHnuv4jh q1ye0Po7z1Iaw0BqoxzjFi8elnt/tCquB+Dzzyhk3sEAqCSe1GlIHRRfTi8a+OV9QlP7 DrRw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ydDp0/zLOurOHL+kCWyHqBS+4FovV1ip3U0FQG/ZpkU=; b=GZkdh+ajhx/PlXUXWaIR08ZfvY0BlykhoFKk04SBCtEkfQbxRxuhXLq3FFKMdb962e 7nJci/b+68MQDtZodUbKUi9+AMk3mxUdAqKI/rzAnNY45Fr63GqSP8uqZCCeGPrjdluH QfGzBpj022CZSmQxx5ey9YvZseYb0SJ80f/pZMceJ6w5q4UnRZoabwuNoH55RIyGIZ+8 juxlc7huXj6l4UUogqtasj1BVlvTF+iP3gGrddsxjZlTZVXoYmxG4+kjYINaFGY7S4Yf TnevmfPxd1QMzY6cWrSi5gg9sY65gacw3dFaQDbpc7ob0Djq029il0t/T5NEfBcCMNDV Daqg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWaapfpbyuR2KoJeTSLgDYrunHcDHJdG9JruCFEhkcVfsoQdFbTn wkrNyVGNp3z0vDH2zWdsm3KrvFODJ7UW3ek9HBViYV4/NF1yrA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/X1RjICT8vqGYgSgDpEGnNF7M8+R4raP0nO+MgtL1RY/kcKPDwNV2k9GNQ5fcCyFFS2Fm5pudr0FwBV/88WBd4=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:94eb:: with SMTP id x98mr10578185jah.88.1543431547504; Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:59:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+9kkMADnZJBaV0hfLuwGU0bGBEP5tCPZ=8Zd_85Dgzi37ghAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxsNFFmER__H0+5Mzts58yn9cWLMEADhSnLR4nreKD9WAQ@mail.gmail.com> <9B9B741B-622F-4565-899B-700636408F6C@iii.ca> <CAD5OKxv9r08RLvMSM4h11A6sXU9E=u_8Qvy-TBfjNcwkhcqf3w@mail.gmail.com> <54ebb208-e7b3-a0f1-6a5c-4745d3a56447@cisco.com> <CAD5OKxut5Lr+Bmyc20y+vV=+_RESw+h72DYLnt3G1_BjS6sTVA@mail.gmail.com> <1346FE48-5D61-48B7-BF37-3D7BAA930DB0@iii.ca> <CAD5OKxv0N+TF3L3bB9KPm4vqQdPZKE=1zkdw1PaV7CpNJ2kYaQ@mail.gmail.com> <110dc822-b3be-7bc2-dcc5-9e6c8277e0d1@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxtKOLovNCi0cJiEiHD+M3tCda7ZSecU8EJKxVPuFs7maQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxtKOLovNCi0cJiEiHD+M3tCda7ZSecU8EJKxVPuFs7maQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 10:58:55 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1m7WeOmjKOZUc7yms7Kw6Pnt-JKKjSioY0TQfpbehFZw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>, mmusic@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000020412d057bbe290d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/sfZS0NAO24fPgEkN5gsiXCOAolU>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Default proto transport in JSEP
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 28 Nov 2018 18:59:12 -0000

Regarding the current conflict between 5.1.2 and 5.2.2, this is discussed
in https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/854, and the editor team
concluded that 5.2.2 should be brought in line with 5.1.2 by removing the
need to match the protocol field. I think this change is important to make
to avoid future confusion.

This conclusion was a result of reviewing the prior discussion in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/gR-dYY1GzN3fIA_XlHiX-bB6nLM,
where this topic was previously litigated. That email thread concluded with
the message in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/p6AFDGqbNm57P6s1cN2ZOUUDj2U,
where Roman seemed to be in agreement with the proposal.


On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:41 AM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Adam,
>
> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:22 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 11/28/18 10:57 AM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 11:38 AM Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2018, at 4:46 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> 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 (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-25#section-5.2.2)
>
> 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 3.2.1.2.
>
>
> At the same time section 5.1.2 says (
> https://tools..ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-25#section-5.1.2
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-25#section-5.1.2>):
>
> 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
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/857, 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
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>