Re: Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-28: (with COMMENT) - All comments should now have been addressed

Hi,

Some other issues have been raised, but I’d like to double check whether
someone has any issue with the suggestion to remove ufrag change as a
trigger for a new DTLS association?

Based on the comments received so far, I don’t think anyone has objected.

Regards,

Christer










On 31/08/17 09:10, "Christer Holmberg" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>>>I have updated the PR. It should now address the IESG comments given by
>>> Adam, Ekr, Alexey and Mirja.
>>>
>>> https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/35
>>>
>>>
>>> In the latest commit (#7):
>>>
>>> - Section 7 (Transport Protocol Considerations) was removed.
>>> - Text regarding correlation of SDP and TLS connection was added to the
>>> Security Considerations (as requested by Mirja).
>>>
>>> Please let me know if there is something I¹ve forgot.
>>
>>The list of issues I posted to MMUSIC included the question about
>>whether ufrag change requires a DTLS restart in the absence of a
>>'tls-id'. There was a bit of discussion on that list which seemed to
>>conclude that it should *not*. I believe the document needs to reflect
>>this -- but I'd specifically ask the MMUSIC chairs whether they see
>>consensus on this point first.
>
>
>Correct, I forgot to mention that the PR yet does not address the ufrag
>issue, waiting for a WG consensus.
>
>Note that there is currently a discussion in RTCWEB on whether a ufrag
>change should trigger an ICE restart. But, as an ICE restart does not
>automatically trigger a DTLS restart I assume it won’t affect
>draft-dtls-sdp. Worth keeping in mind, though.
>
>
>>On the topic of looking over your changes: it's still easier to read a
>>text-form document than digging through XML source. Version numbers are
>>free. I encourage you to drop a new version whenever you ask people to
>>look at changes.
>
>I will submit a new version.
>
>Regards,
>
>Christer
>