Subject: [Ice] Fwd: [MMUSIC] Confusion with references to RFC 5245 and draft-5245bis

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:05:54 -0700

Actually it applies even more directly to ICE. :-)

My impression w.r.t. trickle specifically is that its milestone is 
earlier than 5245bis, so the chairs might have wanted it to not have a 
dependency on the latter. Personally I'm open to argument either way 
(and making sure that trickle and 5245bis are in sync seems like a good 
thing).

Chairs, what is your opinion?

Peter

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[MMUSIC] Confusion with references to RFC 5245 and draft-5245bis
Date: 	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:00:25 +0000
From: 	Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>

(Sorry for the cross-posting, but this applies to both MMUSIC and RTCWEB)

Hi,

draft-bundle currently references RFC 5245.

draft-bundle also references draft-ice-sip-sdp, which references
draft-5245bis.

draft-bundle also references draft-trickle-ice-sip, which references RFC
5245

JSEP references RFC 5245.

JSEP also references draft-bundle.

My intention is to update the reference in draft-bundle to draft-5245bis
– and I REALLY think we should do the same thing in
draft-trickle-ice-sip and draft-jsep. Otherwise we will end up with
references (explicit or implicit) to both RFC 5245 and draft-5245bis all
over, which could end up being REALLY confusing.

I KNOW the reason people want to reference RFC 5245, is because they
don’t want to create a dependency on draft-5245bis. Well, I think we
REALLY shall create such dependency, and then make sure we get
draft-5245bis ready (more on that in a separate draft).

Regards,

Christer

So, my intention is to reference draft-5245bis also in BUNDLE.

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 18:59:10 +0000

Hi,

> My impression w.r.t. trickle specifically is that its milestone is earlier than 5245bis, so the chairs might have wanted it to not have a dependency on
> the latter. Personally I'm open to argument either way (and making sure that trickle and 5245bis are in sync seems like a good thing).

Milestones can change, and my intention is to try to get 5245bis finalized. There aren't too many technical open issues, so I don't think trickle would "suffer".  It seems to be held up mainly while we wait for the network measurement results, but I have asked whether someone is actually working on providing them...

If we don't align the references we are going to end up with a mess.

As far as trickle is concerned, my understanding is that 5245bis is more or less needed in order to make it work.

Regards,

Christer

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	[MMUSIC] Confusion with references to RFC 5245 and draft-5245bis
Date: 	Mon, 22 Feb 2016 09:00:25 +0000
From: 	Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
To: 	[email-masked] <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] <[email-masked]>

Hi,

draft-bundle also references draft-ice-sip-sdp, which references draft-5245bis.

My intention is to update the reference in draft-bundle to draft-5245bis - and I REALLY think we should do the same thing in draft-trickle-ice-sip and draft-jsep. Otherwise we will end up with references (explicit or implicit) to both RFC 5245 and draft-5245bis all over, which could end up being REALLY confusing.

I KNOW the reason people want to reference RFC 5245, is because they don't want to create a dependency on draft-5245bis. Well, I think we REALLY shall create such dependency, and then make sure we get draft-5245bis ready (more on that in a separate draft).

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 20:37:25 -0700

On 2/22/16 11:59 AM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>> earlier than 5245bis, so the chairs might have wanted it to not
>> have a dependency on the latter. Personally I'm open to argument
>> either way (and making sure that trickle and 5245bis are in sync
>> seems like a good thing).
>
> Milestones can change, and my intention is to try to get 5245bis
> finalized. There aren't too many technical open issues, so I don't
> think trickle would "suffer".  It seems to be held up mainly while we
> wait for the network measurement results, but I have asked whether
> someone is actually working on providing them...
>

Agreed.

> As far as trickle is concerned, my understanding is that 5245bis is
> more or less needed in order to make it work.

Well, trickle has worked for 10 years now. :-) However, making sure that 
the specifications are consistent is a great idea and I'm happy to help 
with that from the trickle side.

Peter