search

rtcweb-wg / jsep

33 stars 32 forks source link

22) [rfced] Section 5.2.1: We found this RFC Editor Note on #892

Closed juberti closed 4 years ago

juberti commented 4 years ago

22) [rfced] Section 5.2.1: We found this RFC Editor Note on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep/writeup/:

OLD:

o An "a=ice-options" line with the "trickle" option MUST be added, as specified in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 4.

NEW:

o An "a=ice-options" line with the "trickle" option MUST be added, as specified in [I-D.ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip], Section 4.1.1.

Please note that the "OLD" text does not match what we found in the provided draft:

o An "a=ice-options" line with the "trickle" and "ice2" options MUST be added, as specified in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 3 and [RFC8445], Section 10.

We updated as follows. Is the "and [RFC8445], Section 10" still applicable?

Currently:

  • An "a=ice-options" line with the "trickle" and "ice2" options MUST be added, as specified in [RFC8840], Section 4.1.1 and [RFC8445], Section 10.
juberti commented 4 years ago

I think we want

An "a=ice-options" line with the "trickle" and "ice2" options MUST be added, as specified in [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle], Section 3 and [RFC8445], Section 10.

juberti commented 4 years ago

@ajeanmahoney please close this issue once you consider it resolved.

juberti commented 4 years ago

Upon further reflection, while I think the current draft text (the 3rd block of text above) is correct, based on the note the proposed text (4th block) may be preferred. @adamroach as he wrote the note and can help disambiguate.

adamroach commented 4 years ago

Well, it's definitely not RFC 8440 section 3, as that says nothing about SDP syntax or the trickle attribute. I think this is correct:

An "a=ice-options" line with the "trickle" and "ice2" options MUST be added, as specified in [RFC8840], Section 4.1.1 and [RFC8445], Section 10.

(Which is the final block above.)

I have to concede that I've lost context for why the RFC Editor note was necessary in the first place, but it's probably better to be more precise in any case.

juberti commented 4 years ago

@adamroach we're deciding between mmusic-trickle-sip-sdp, Section 4.1.1, which says:

In any case, the Offerer MUST include the attribute a=ice-options:trickle in accordance to [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle].

and ice-trickle, Section 3, which says:

Even if a signaling protocol does not include a capabilities discovery method, a user agent can provide an indication within the ICE description that it supports Trickle ICE using a token of "trickle" in the ice-options attribute.

adamroach commented 4 years ago

Ah, sorry -- I missed that we were talking about two different documents. Given that the reference to trickle-ice-sip-sdp is both more indirect and unnecessarily involves a document about an only marginally related technology, I think the ice-trickle section 3 reference is cleaner.

My vague recollection now is that ice-trickle used to rely on trickle-ice-sip-sdp for this behavior, and we reversed that dependency later in the cycle by moving the normative definition into ice-trickle.

juberti commented 4 years ago

I looked into this a bit more closely as part of some related JSEP issues and am now leaning toward keeping the trickle-sip-sdp reference; JSEP already leans on this document for the definition of a=candidate, a=ice-ufrag, a=ice=pwd, etc, and as a similar signaling protocol topic I think a=ice-options should be handled the same way.

juberti commented 4 years ago

For the avoidance of doubt, I am suggesting use of the final block above:

An "a=ice-options" line with the "trickle" and "ice2" options MUST
be added, as specified in [RFC8840], Section 4.1.1 and [RFC8445],
Section 10.
adamroach commented 4 years ago

I don't feel strongly about it either way. I think the intention is clear, and implemetors will get it right regardless of which of the two citations you choose.