Re: [rtcweb] Results of call for consensus on ICE transport parameter issue

Sure, but I think it makes sense to use the same terminology (i.e.,
"profile") as is used in other RTP-related documents.

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 11:58 PM Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> In 4566bis, <proto> defines a transport protocol.
>
>
>
> In case of RTP, the text refers to RTP/AVP as an “RTP profile”, but it is
> still a transport protocol.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From: *Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
> *Date: *Monday, 25 February 2019 at 6.10
> *To: *Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
> *Cc: *Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>,
> Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [rtcweb] Results of call for consensus on ICE transport
> parameter issue
>
>
>
> Found a way to address this with minor changes to the existing PR.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 5:46 PM Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
> Roman, thanks for raising this. I looked into this a bit and it's kind of
> ambiguous; https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7850 uses "profile", "proto",
> and "protocol" (although "protocol" is used most frequently).
>
>
>
> JSEP actually uses both profile and protocol to refer to the transport,
> depending on the section; if we make a change here, we should hit all
> usages, which probably means that it is outside of the scope of this
> particular issue.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 1:19 PM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Justin,
>
>
>
> I did provide editorial feedback to the change on github:
>
>
>
> 1. This document refers to SDP protocol as profile. If you look at the
> referenced documents that define "profiles" in JSEP, they all refer to them
> as protocols. Also, in case of SRTP, profile is actually something
> different and refers to SRTP key parameters.
>
>
>
> 2. Default candidate does not have profile (or protocol), it has
> transport, port, and (connection-)address. So each "m=" and "c=" MUST be
> filled in with port, protocol, and address to match port, transport, and
> address of the default candidate for the m= section, as described in
> ice-sip-sdp.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 3:05 PM Christer Holmberg <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
> Looks good.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> *From: *rtcweb <rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Justin Uberti
> <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org <40google..com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> *Date: *Saturday, 16 February 2019 at 3.57
> *To: *Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
> *Cc: *"rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [rtcweb] Results of call for consensus on ICE transport
> parameter issue
>
>
>
> I have updated this PR to incorporate minor feedback that was received
> during the consensus call. Those who had feedback, please take another look
> and comment on the PR if you are satisfied.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The chairs believe that there was rough consensus among those responding
> to make the change in:
>
>
>
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/863
>
>
>
> Given the state of the document, it will be the Area Director's call as to
> how much of the post-working group approval process must be re-done.
> Authors, please wait on his direction before publishing a new version with
> this merged.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ted and Sean
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>