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

Hi,

While it's the chairs' prerogative to judge consensus, it seems to me 
that the discussion has been somewhere between "we do need 
TCP/DTLS/SCTP" and "we might need it". Since the draft has already been 
approved by the IESG, we shouldn't make a material change unless we have 
a really good reason. I propose leaving it in.

One more comment inline:

On 16 Feb 2017, at 11:54, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> Hi,
>
>> Once nomination process is completed, it should be the selected, not 
>> the default >candidate.
>>
>> When session is established or during ICE restart, multiple 
>> candidates are sent >in offer/answer and DEFAULT candidate must be 
>> used in the m= line.
>>
>> Once nomination process is completed, only the currently selected 
>> candidate is >sent in offer/answer and this would be the candidate in 
>> the m= line. Resources >associated with other candidates, such as 
>> network ports or TURN allocations, >are typically released at that 
>> point, so there is no point to include them any >more.
>
> Well, then we need to clarify the text (or remove the text completely, 
> and simply refer to the ICE spec), because the ICE considerations 
> section talks about offers and answers in general.

To be clear, are you talking about clarifying text in _this_ draft, or 
elsewhere?

Thanks!

Ben.

>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Christer Holmberg 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 
> wrote:
> 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]<mailto:[email protected]>]
> Sent: 16 February 2017 19:38
> To: Roman Shpount <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
> Cc: Christer Holmberg 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 
> Ben Campbell <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; mmusic WG 
> <[email protected]<mailto:[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

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