Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Revised ice-updated-offer draft

From: "Elwell, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 09:51:50 +0200

I received no comments on -01. To prepare for a meaningful discussion in Quebec, it would be good to start that discussion now, on the list. In particular, the Conclusions section ends with the statement:
" According to discussions in section Section 4, it seems to be the
   case that the updated offer is needed, in practice, in very few
   environments, and therefore consideration should be given to relaxing
   the requirement in [RFC5245]."
What would be people's reactions to updating RFC 5245 to relax this requirement?

John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elwell, John 
> Sent: 25 May 2011 16:13
> To: mmusic
> Cc: Stach, Thomas; Hutton, Andrew
> Subject: Revised ice-updated-offer draft
> 
> Version 01 has been posted:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updat
ed-offer/
> 
> Compared with 00, this attempts to reflect the discussions in 
> Prague, including:
> - avoidance of the term "middlebox";
> - discussion of 100rel and pre-conditions as possible 
> solution to fax problem;
> - noted that the 3PCC issue exists anyway without ICE, but is 
> more likely to arise with ICE;
> - new section 4 on whether we really need the updated offer;
> - revised conclusion section, suggesting relaxing the 
> requirement for the ICE updated offer.
> 
> Comments welcome.
> 
> John
>