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

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Mon, 25 February 2019 19:56 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 38049130E7A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:56:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, 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 Wc_-joluWULn for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:56:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-it1-x131.google.com (mail-it1-x131.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (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 A37F8129A85 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:56:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-it1-x131.google.com with SMTP id f186so620671ita.0 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:56:05 -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=krFnf0UP6nkuJkaei0POJxdKt/xcGdZ6OY5jffPeJ1s=; b=KqE2eqbxmWOb9zkvdvh+zQJv4asQFXJ8mgXOAZCmW1CwFMA2t8ozYV9wFZNP3zOfAC nPt92zhY+nWkTdNiZcgR9IGfgANFPlP3TQfLZkhI1wtx8/tAr0H+EYgKbQnlie1K0Wzq lW3W5IBCk4yHmEPiA0Dh1QUdRkxkxiELxqkg5SPodUTmpsfUQVxzmYa5kOCzartwJP6u 5yclUPooMisZqkbqMpFL+qSsIxmFAy1JSX5Oji2/pCttDJl9pnLywexgAhs6NscGl9Q4 GwjF64koGT+T7Ux2c9bwXQoIeqmLRfYAN0PSRvZa4IlCOUxj4FBZRvpFsLglTlL2YldR AUyA==
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=krFnf0UP6nkuJkaei0POJxdKt/xcGdZ6OY5jffPeJ1s=; b=GeJlucBCmfP3FCb4Bw4cTK0ZUbsJZ8KxFujfkFBGKzJMENu9VS4yHW/dYeWWEsajOO FaJ3Ii1JSphBaqUMCwXwaUO6YNoaV+Gny337Ye8vMb2HjPJPI4N146mvaQtaNwOKg07J lg7jPYkK+6KEMTJRZEhy0vAPffE97jsV5S2drCb3esd9tLU5I8qPW9RxJgr/J/dNHAZC tNTsRxYp5koS8FLF7zjEFgvb2b2WUxAiVYk4VTw8XDnhUd3+aHS/g6RsbqDzG9rMbvXr gqcvdMyjG1Ww3dHyd7p+x03RXCaeXnh7+LveNQ8WgihcmjlSg5fG+aJYeL8U4kDqgdZQ a83w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuY3ucENOJGpy/u4IjUH1XA9oWrXyPEWhTr3eQI+KwzcwhUONgvX oMQsbRiDG0KGjur5mu3eoQDpXPgWdlfinFepdZJvIw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYNc5OsJAGdAuRQp22Nr7Ynu7lcxegxhA18BUMZkM569mV5AP2F5NKlIq2fNOZ0S+aeD0XRC3MuS/nuF3h3Ihw=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:1d6:: with SMTP id 83mr10814101jak.29.1551124564393; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:56:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CA+9kkMDMMfEU2QE9AkPXsCgHp1gB=X6_-jAKvH6FsWhqNkV_Kg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2QLpD5Y5xdB1jKPS3uqsh7TMFFMR57YB1KTPTCcJ1F7w@mail.gmail.com> <0F9730B2-3E44-439D-9832-4C4AEBC054B5@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxvHWr2wPhzdT_v8mAgOVBC0E1DHfGMqBNCtyGBD-+0U-g@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2yHxAnzFsXFap=KgM8hWvOWksQVKnbO7UEfy475qURcg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2+vz=fiwqD_x8D5yeHdkkRJE8v6WbYAYxWa1kZGqGaFA@mail.gmail.com> <8C8AC253-4995-4FD8-B9A7-2E4F303B5153@ericsson.com> <CAOJ7v-2KX-20HZSa_rBJ_o-oFnu2eSWK+3wZaUCsfnaBGzei_g@mail.gmail.com> <E7496DAB-7846-44B4-8C58-FA3BB5D55BC6@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <E7496DAB-7846-44B4-8C58-FA3BB5D55BC6@ericsson.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 11:55:52 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-145rMZrM25Zc2KLVvyLC80DnC7nLZu7H_ayRPUgMzq9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000aa32700582bd5494"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/x3FFcqdRKb54rrHIgbcOVP_XyYk>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Results of call for consensus on ICE transport parameter issue
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: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 19:56:09 -0000

I believe the current PR makes JSEP internally consistent.

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 11:43 AM Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>; wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am not sure what other document you refer to, but it really depends on
> what the text is talking about: the semantics of the <proto> field, which
> is a transport protocol, or whatever is used as a transport protocol (e.g.,
> an RTP profile).
>
>
>
> Having said that, I am aware that documents unfortunately don’t use
> consistent terminology, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the 4566bis
> terminology isn’t used everywhere (also, there have been discussions about
> the 4566bis terminology itself…).
>
>
>
> My personal preference would be to be aligned with 4566bis, but as long as
> we are consistent within JSEP I can live with it.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Christer
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>;
> *Date: *Monday, 25 February 2019 at 19.54
> *To: *Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>;
> *Cc: *Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>;, Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>;,
> "rtcweb@ietf.org"; <rtcweb@ietf.org>;
> *Subject: *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
>
>