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

On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Ben Campbell <[email protected]> wrote:

> 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.
>

As you have probably noticed I am strongly for leaving TCP/DTLS/SCTP in the
draft, since things will break otherwise and draft will require substantial
editing to recover.


> On 16 Feb 2017, at 11:54, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
> 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?
>
>
Christer is talking about section 12.2 of the draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp.
As the language stands right now, it is not incorrect, but is slightly
confusing, since it is talking about default candidates for all ICE related
offer/answer exchanges.  After ICE nomination process is completed, there
is only one candidate left, so there is no default. In session descriptions
that describe the session after ICE nomination is complete only one
candidate is present, so there is typically no confusion about what goes
into the m= line, but this is not spelled out in the draft. I will submit
the PR and Christer can merge and resubmit the draft when he is back.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount

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