Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Default proto transport in JSEP
From: Roman Shpount <[email-masked]>
To: Justin Uberti <[email-masked]>
Cc: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>, RTCWeb IETF <[email-masked]>, mmusic WG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 01:15:49 -0500
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:58 AM Justin Uberti <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Anyway, we have the 3 choices listed below. We differ on which is the most
> pragmatic solution. If the WG has enough voices in support of #2 or #3 to
> overturn the consensus of #1 from IETF 103, I will write it up accordingly.
>

So the 3 choices are:

1) (current) Match IP and port, but stipulate an exact proto value -- This
choice is not compliant with either RFC 5245 or draft ice-sip-sdp. If this
is selected, ice-sip-sdp will need to be updated
2) Match IP, port and proto -- Compliant with both RFC 5245 and ice-sip-sdp
3) Set IP, port, and proto to fixed values -- Compliant with only
ice-sip-sdp but not with RFC 5245

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount