Re: Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?
Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.mmusic |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, My suggestion is to keep the TCP/DTLS/SCTP definition. We earlier made a choice to restrict the scope of the document (by removing plain SCTP and DTLS-over-SCTP proto values), and I think we should keep the current scope. Regards, Christer From: mmusic [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell Sent: 16 February 2017 17:52 To: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]> Cc: mmusic WG <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field? Process background: draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp was on today's IESG telechat. The draft is approved for publication, but with a point raised to ask the WG resolve Ekr's question. Thanks! Ben. On 16 Feb 2017, at 9:43, Eric Rescorla wrote: I raised this with the authors, but maybe it is worth asking the mailing list. It seems like we are trending towards a world where we just ignore the transport component of the proto field and let ICE work things out. In that vein, I wonder do we really need to register/define TCP/DTLS/SCTP. It's only really useful if we think people will do SCTP over DTLS with TCP without ICE. Is that actually likely. I note that per previous discussions, JSEP already requires that you use UDP/DTLS/SCTP all the time: http://rtcweb-wg.github.io/jsep/#rfc.section.5.1.2 -Ekr _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic