[MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and updates/corrections

"Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com> Wed, 19 September 2012 07:23 UTC

Message-ID: <505972DD.3060908@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 09:23:09 +0200
From: "Miguel A. Garcia" <Miguel.A.Garcia@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and updates/corrections
Precedence: list

Hi all,

This mail relates to ICE [RFC 5245].

In the past few months, we have seen a number of documents that are
trying to improve the usage of ICE in different ways. The list of
documents include at least the following drafts:

- draft-keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection-01
- draft-petithuguenin-mmusic-ice-attributes-level-03
- draft-wing-mmusic-ice-mobility-01
- draft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updated-offer-02

There is, in addition, a long discussion in the RTCWEB mailing list
about "trickle ICE", and a couple of other ICE-related drafts
and discussions in RTCWEB.

Most likely, we can categorize these documents in two big classes:

a) Documents that identify underspecified areas or errors in the spec,
which are often driven by implementation experience

b) Documents that update or extend ICE with new functionality, such as
"tricke ICE" (see e.g. the e-mail thread at
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/current/msg05121.html) .
Such documents may involve normative updates to the ICE specification or
they may simply be ICE extensions.".

Assuming that we would get consensus to adopt some or all of these
documents as work to proceed on, the MMUSIC chairs and RAI ADs would
like to get some sense of how should we aim at documenting it. Below
are some options, please comment on them or add alternatives.

a) Create a revision of ICE (i.e., a document what will obsolete RFC 
5245), including all the extensions and corrections that
we want to choose from the list. This sounds like a big effort in
time, and presumably will create a big spec. We should make sure that
people have enough cycles to devote to this activity.

b) Create a revision of ICE (obsoleting RFC 5245), but only addressing
bug fixing and opening hooks to extensions, with the idea that
extensions won't need to violate 5245bis. Additionally, document each
extension in a separate RFC. Extensions will depend and refer to the
5245bis draft.

c) Leave the current ICE core spec as is. Document each extension
separately (referring to 5245). Create open or more documents listing
bug fixes and corrections (will also update RFC 5245).

Needless to say, at this point in time, there is no decision as for
which of the ICE-related drafts will proceed or not. We are just
trying to get consensus of how to document ICE-related drafts, and in 
particular if the WG believes we should do a revision of RFC 5245. If so, 
we also need to hear who is willing to work on such a revision.

Now, it is your time to express your opinion.

Kindly regards,

         Flemming and Miguel.
-- 
Miguel A. Garcia
+34-91-339-3608
Ericsson Spain

[MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and upda… Miguel A. Garcia
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Pal Martinsen (palmarti)
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Magnus Westerlund
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Harald Alvestrand
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Marc Petit-Huguenin
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Bernard Aboba
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Emil Ivov
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Ari Keranen
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Miguel A. Garcia
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Cullen Jennings (fluffy)
Re: [MMUSIC] Poll for path on ICE extensions and … Ari Keranen