Re: ICE-SIP-SDP updates

Any further comments on this ? If not, when can we get the updates in so 
we can move forward with the document ?

Thanks

-- Flemming

On 9/18/17 5:33 AM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> Hi Suhas,
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 12:15 AM, Suhas Nandakumar 
> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     1. Handling of ICE mismatch
>
>     Where is ICE mismatch currently defined? I cannot find this in
>     either rfc5245bis or ICE-SIP-SDP.
>
>     I think ICE mismatch should occur if address in c= line and port
>     in m= line do not match any of the candidates and <new>address in
>     c= line is not dummy address IN IP4 0.0.0.0 and port in m= line is
>     not dummy port 9 </new>. This is needed to match
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-21#section-5.2.1
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-21#section-5.2.1>
>     and trickle ICE
>
>     [Suhas] ICE mismatch is discussed in 4.1.2.3,  4.1.3.1 and 11.2.2
>
>
> [roman] Section 4.1.2.3 should be modified to allow c= line with IN 
> IP4 0.0.0.0 and port in m= line with port 9 not to be treated as 
> ice-mismatch even if it does not match any of the candidates. Without 
> this, trickle ICE and JSEP will cause ice-mismatch. Furthermore, rtcp 
> attribute is optional, so the text needs to be modified to allow for this.
>
>     2. Move general requirements from
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-26#section-12.2
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-sctp-sdp-26#section-12.2>
>     into ICE-SIP-SDP.
>
>     [Suhas] Added the supporting text in the above PR. Also the
>     repository has HTML file for easy reading.
>
>
> [roman] This looks good, but I will double check and provide comments 
> if I find anything.
>
>
>     3. ICE transport tag
>
>     [Suhas] IIRC, this topic was brought to discussion several times
>     in the WG and there was no consensus on defining a new ICE
>     specific transport tag. Personally, I feel this will be a large
>     undertaking and we should avoid doing this as part of this draft
>     work. I am open to suggestions.
>
>
>  [roman]  I agree that this can be left out and handled in the future 
> draft if there is enough support for it.
>
> Regards,
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

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