Re: Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?

Hi,

It’s not only the re-INVITE, it’s ANY subsequent offer sent during the session.

However,  I think we changed that part. The draft now says that when sending an offer or answer, the m- line proto value must reflect the DEFAULT candidiate.

Regards,

Christer

From: Eric Rescorla [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 16 February 2017 19:38
To: Roman Shpount <[email protected]>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>; Ben Campbell <[email protected]>; mmusic WG <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?

I also think the re-INVITE is unnecessary.

-Ekr

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 9:16 AM, Roman Shpount <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The way ICE is currently defined, ICE enabled end points are supposed to send a re-INVITE after nomination process is completed with the selected candidate address in the m= line. So, if tcp candidate is selected, re-INVITE must be sent with TCP/DTLS/SCTP in the m= line. Also, any offers/answers after the ICE nomination is complete, are supposed to send the currently selected candidate in the m= line, which will also be TCP/DTLS/SCTP in case tcp candidate is selected.

Based on all of this, I would strongly suggest to keep TCP/DTLS/SCTP.

Regards,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Christer Holmberg <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Ben Campbell
Sent: 16 February 2017 17:52
To: Eric Rescorla <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Cc: mmusic WG <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic