Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-dtls-sdp-28: (with COMMENT) - All comments should now have been addressed

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 09:31:42 +0000

Hi,

I have updated the PR. It should now address the IESG comments given by
Adam, Ekr, Alexey and Mirja.

https://github.com/cdh4u/draft-dtls-sdp/pull/35

In the latest commit (#7):

- Section 7 (Transport Protocol Considerations) was removed.
- Text regarding correlation of SDP and TLS connection was added to the
Security Considerations (as requested by Mirja).

Please let me know if there is something I¹ve forgot.

Regards,

Christer

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:03:29 -0500

> Please let me know if there is something I¹ve forgot.

The list of issues I posted to MMUSIC included the question about 
whether ufrag change requires a DTLS restart in the absence of a 
'tls-id'. There was a bit of discussion on that list which seemed to 
conclude that it should *not*. I believe the document needs to reflect 
this -- but I'd specifically ask the MMUSIC chairs whether they see 
consensus on this point first.

On the topic of looking over your changes: it's still easier to read a 
text-form document than digging through XML source. Version numbers are 
free. I encourage you to drop a new version whenever you ask people to 
look at changes.

/a

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 14:27:55 -0500

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Adam Roach <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> The list of issues I posted to MMUSIC included the question about whether ufrag change requires a DTLS restart in the absence of a 'tls-id'. There was a bit of discussion on that list which seemed to conclude that it should *not*. I believe the document needs to reflect this -- but I'd specifically ask the MMUSIC chairs whether they see consensus on this point first.

I concur.

Chairs, what do you think?

> 
> On the topic of looking over your changes: it's still easier to read a text-form document than digging through XML source. Version numbers are free. I encourage you to drop a new version whenever you ask people to look at changes.

I agree here, too. Christer, can you submit a revision with the changes so far?

Thanks!

Ben.

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 15:32:52 -0400

> Chairs, what do you think?
I would like to hear from a few more people first (and in particular 
some of the traditional stakeholders such as EKR, Cullen and Justin).

Thanks

-- Flemming (as MMUSIC co-chair)

> Ben..

---

From: "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 13:07:52 -0700

It's been on my list to go and read all of this but hope to email comments in early Sept. 

> On Aug 30, 2017, at 12:32 PM, Flemming Andreasen (fandreas) <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to hear from a few more people first (and in particular some of the traditional stakeholders such as EKR, Cullen and Justin).
> 
> Thanks
>

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 06:10:29 +0000

Hi,

>consensus on this point first.

Correct, I forgot to mention that the PR yet does not address the ufrag
issue, waiting for a WG consensus.

Note that there is currently a discussion in RTCWEB on whether a ufrag
change should trigger an ICE restart. But, as an ICE restart does not
automatically trigger a DTLS restart I assume it won’t affect
draft-dtls-sdp. Worth keeping in mind, though.

>free. I encourage you to drop a new version whenever you ask people to

I will submit a new version.

Regards,

Christer