Re: [rtcweb] [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>On Apr 4, 2018, at 11:07 AM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>
>>wrote:
>> 
>> On 4/3/18 2:41 PM, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]
>>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 3, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]
>>>><mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 4/3/18 12:27 PM, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:
>>>>> Just to complete, ice-bis doesn¹t normatively reference ice-sip-SDP
>>>>> draft when it moved to using ³usages ³ indirections for signaling
>>>>>protocols.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Trickle ice can use similar approach and refer to trickle-sip as
>>>>>usage
>>>>> for trickle.
>>>> 
>>>> It already does. That's why we pulled all the SDP/SIP stuff out of
>>>> draft-ietf-ice-trickle.
>>> 
>>>    I assume Suhas meant separating the SDP stuff from the SIP stuff. (I
>>>    also assume he will correct me if I am wrong.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> That's right Ben .. I was just thinking minimal localized changes (thus
>>> small time to get new draft done) and then asking trickle, trickle-sip
>>>to
>>> refer to the new one. (work done to refer is much smaller for these
>>> drafts that are at the very end of approval journey)
>>> 
>>> I do agree with Adam, no matter what version of the proposal we pick,
>>> there is some work that needs to be done and we
>>> should do it.
>> 
>> These documents are on the telechat tomorrow. Are we proposing to delay
>> consideration by the IESG while we get this mess sorted out? ;-)
>
>Hi Peter,
>
>I currently plan to leave it on. We may discuss a way forward on the
>telechat. Also, I¹d like to get feedback on the rest of the draft(s) from
>the other ADs sooner than later.

Did you discuss this at the telechat?

Any other discussions on how to move forward with this?

Regards,

Christer