Re: [rtcweb] Referring to 5245bis or 5245?

[Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]>]

On 6/8/17 10:32 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>> On Jun 8, 2017, at 15:14, Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/7/17 10:38 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 10:45 PM, Flemming Andreasen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> Based on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis/referencedby/ (or you can take a look at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jennings-rtcweb-deps/):
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp
>>>
>>> draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation
>>>
>>> I don't see why any of these would require ICE-bis except through trickle.
>>>
>>> I appreciate that the document reference graph shows a lot of dependencies on ICE-bis, but what's not clear to me is what the *technical* dependencies are.
>> The MMUSIC list would be the best place to discuss that further and if you want to make changes, then I'd suggest a thread per draft to understand the technical dependencies.
>>
>> FYI, the MMUSIC chairs, ICE chairs and our AD (Ben Campbell) did have a discussion around this issue about a year ago in the context of bundle. At the time, we did identify references to new 5245bis behavior in the bundle draft that some people had asked for explicitly.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> -- Flemming
> Flemming,
>
> I have to ask if those conversation happened on list?  If not, it seems to me like the shorter path might be to share those 5245bis behaviors you identified.
They were off-list. There is a reference to "ice-pwd" as part of a note 
that was added following list discussion. There is also a reference to 
ice-sip-sdp, which in turn would depend on 5245bis - there might be more 
(we did not do an exhaustive investigation at the time, but those two 
were noted).

In any case, if you want to advocate changes in the MMUSIC drafts, those 
changes should be discussed on the MMUSIC list.

Thanks

-- Flemming

> spt.
>