Re: [Rum] END of WGLC for draft-ietf-rum-rue-07

[Ed Sayers <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gunnar,

I would suggest that RFC-8865 should not be a requirement as such, because only browser-based endpoints are limited by the need to support T140 over an SCTP data channel.

Any non-browser-based T140 capable endpoint can already support RFC-4103 directly over UDP/RTP normally, as it does for audio or video media.

Thus, I believe that RFC-8865 should only be required where T-140 over RTP/UDP cannot be supported directly a RUM endpoint.

This avoids the implicit requirement to pin all media to a gateway for all RUM endpoints, just to translate T140 over SCTP for some of those endpoints.
This would particularly affect the use-case of peer-to-peer calling where ICE may be able to find a more direct route between endpoints.

Cheers,


Ed Sayers
Endpoint SDK Team Lead
Purple, a Division of ZP Better Together, LLC
purplevrs.com

The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.




-----Original Message-----
From: Rum <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Gunnar Hellström
Sent: 15 September 2021 08:25
To: Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Rum] END of WGLC for draft-ietf-rum-rue-07

Paul,

I suggest that you add:

9) Transport of RTT

RTT transport in WebRTC data channel is specified in RFC 8865, including advice for gateways to RFC 4103 for RTP transport. Include use of RFC
8865 either as a requirement or as information for interop with WebRTC in sections 5.2.5, 6.2 and 6.6.
See point 4 in
<https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/zV5_dCm-sAN8N7ewrcdDsLsiCg4>

/Gunnar

Den 2021-09-14 kl. 22:20, skrev Paul Kyzivat:
> Group,
>
> The WGLC for draft-ietf-rum-rue-07 ended yesterday Sept 13.
>
> Here is my attempt at summarizing the actionable items from the list 
> discussion that has occurred since the beginning of the last call. I 
> am  giving a brief summary of each point and a reference to the email 
> a key email message about it.
>
> 1) Correct a dropped reference to [RFC6442] 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/toxdHe0D9x1kVPcZkRB_N8R9Ww4
> >
>
> 2) Add a section discussion video email management and a URL to the 
> configuration that the RUE may invoke to retrieve/manage video mail.
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/TQfX2RpHYcM883O47FSqsetBsZM
> > 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/TQfX2RpHYcM883O47FSqsetBsZM
> >
>
> 3) In section 7.2 of this document, it still refers to the use of 
> jCard. Should be xcard.
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/6dnvxHIJuTSzndf_35QG7OcYZOI
> >
>
>
> 4) Need to fix an unresolved reference to [FCC-VRS-GUIDE] 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/zV5_dCm-sAN8N7ewrcdDsLsiCg4
> >
>
> 5) A need was raised to add support for multiparty RTT (because it can 
> arise in emergency calls) 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/zV5_dCm-sAN8N7ewrcdDsLsiCg4
> >
>
> 6) Jean Mahoney raised a number of editorial issues 
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/FxaKh2k52jcB8yacoa7l5FBHgDA
> >
>
> 7) Gunnar requested that the semantics of language support in the 
> configuration.
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/zV5_dCm-sAN8N7ewrcdDsLsiCg4
> >
>
> 8) Support for IPv6
> <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rum/t4SJcmr63rli0k-y1ClQQj39JBE
> >
>
> In the above message Brian says:
> "I would like to add that the proposed compromise actions on IPv6 
> (adding the support mandate for the backwards compatibility RFCs) and 
> SRTP (adding a requirement to support OSRTP) were very welcome, and I 
> will add them to the document assuming Paul calls consensus on those 
> items."
>
> Yet I find no other mention of OSRTP in list email since well before 
> the start of wglc, nor in the meeting minutes. I don't think there was 
> anything like consensus on this.
>
> If anyone thinks we have reached any new conclusion on IPv6, can you 
> please post a reference that documents it?
>
> If anyone disputes any of the above, or thinks there were other 
> consensus points that need to be addressed, please post details no 
> later than this coming Friday, Sept 17.
>
> Meanwhile I request that Brian begin incorporating the above into a 
> revised version.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Paul
>
> On 8/26/21 1:05 PM, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>> [Speaking as a RUM WG chair]
>>
>> This message announces the start of WGLC (Working Group Last Call) 
>> for draft-ietf-rum-rue-07.
>>
>> The end of this WGLC will be midnight UTC on September 12, 2021.
>> (That is roughly two weeks, rounded up to a week boundary.)
>>
>> The energy level in the wg has been low. This WGLC is to help us move 
>> to wrap things up. The comments that have been posted for the last 
>> few days will be treated as WGLC comments. If you have made comments 
>> recently please review to see if they are impacted by the changes in
>> -07 and if so update your comments. (I don't think any are.)
>>
>> Starting on Monday morning September 13 we will assess where we stand 
>> based on WGLC comments. If discussion has been robust but incomplete 
>> we MAY further extend the WGLC.
>>
>>      Thank you,
>>      Paul Kyzivat
>
--
Gunnar Hellström
GHAccess
[e-mail]

--
Rum mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rum