Subject: [MMUSIC] I-D Action: draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-30.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2019 05:01:27 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Multiparty Multimedia Session Control WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer procedures for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
        Authors         : Marc Petit-Huguenin
                          Suhas Nandakumar
                          Ari Keranen
	Filename        : draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-30.txt
	Pages           : 42
	Date            : 2019-06-01

Abstract:
   This document describes Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/
   Answer procedures for carrying out Interactive Connectivity
   Establishment (ICE) between the agents.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-30
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-30

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-30

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 17:32:14 +0530

Version 30 address answerer ice-mismatch clarification suggestions

Thanks
Suhas

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:31 PM <[email-masked]> wrote:

>         Title           : Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer
> procedures for Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

---

From: Flemming Andreasen <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2019 19:06:14 -0400

Thank you for the updated document Suhas. I have read through it and it 
generally looks good to me. One question though:

Section 3.3.4 says:
<quote>

    Once the state of each check list is Completed, and if the agent is
    the controlling agent, it nominates a candidate pair [RFC8445] and
    checks for each data stream whether the nominated pair matches the
    default candidate pair.  If there are one or more data streams with a
    match, and the peer did not indicate support for the 'ice2' ice-
    option, the controlling agent MUST generate a subsequent offer
    (Section 3.4.1), in which the connection address, port and transport
    protocol in the "c=" and "m=" lines associated with each data stream
    match the corresponding local information of the nominated pair for
    that data stream.
</quote>

In the second sentence, shouldn't it rather be if there is a line with a 
mismatch instead of a match ?

Thanks

-- Flemming

On 6/1/19 8:02 AM, Suhas Nandakumar wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:31 PM <[email-masked] 
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>
>
>             Title           : Session Description Protocol (SDP)
>     Offer/Answer procedures for Interactive Connectivity Establishment
>     (ICE)
>     until the htmlized version and diff are available at
>     tools.ietf.org <http://tools.ietf.org>.
>
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Suhas Nandakumar <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 08:37:29 +0530

Hi Flemming
Good catch. will fix in the next version

Thanks
Suhas