Subject: [rtcweb] Confirming consensus from Interim: Data protocol and security mechanism

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 16:02:46 -0800

WG,

This is a 2 week call for confirming the consensus of the interim
meeting regarding data transport. The WG members not present at the
interim are requested to indicate support or objections on the consensus
from the interim. This email contains two calls related to the data
transport. Please provide any input no later than the 15th of February.

The jabber logs are pretty well capturing the discussion. Please see
from 00:18:36 in
http://www.ietf.org/jabber/logs/rtcweb/2012-02-01.html

The first consensus call made was which transport protocol that should
be used. Based on the discussion it was clear that SCTP was favored and
that was confirmed by the consensus call. Where 19 participants
preferred SCTP as the transport protocol for the data channel and 3
desired something else. The WG declared clear consensus for using SCTP
as the transport protocol for data. Does the WG participants not present
agrees or objects?

The seconds consensus call was on the order of SCTP and DTLS on top of
UDP. The two alternatives are: SCTP/DTLS/UDP or DTLS/SCTP/UDP. This was
a unanimous consensus, where 18 preferred SCTP/DTLS/UDP, and no for the
other order. Does the WG participants not present agrees or objects?

Cheers

Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [email-masked]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Yoshifumi Nishida <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2012 20:20:20 -0800

Hello,

> other order. Does the WG participants not present agrees or objects?

This is not an objection. I'm just curious..
If we think about the situation where we want to use SCTP without UDP
encaps, DTLS/SCTP/UDP seems to be more straightforward approach to me.
Also, we already have RFC6083.
I'm wondering why there was no support for this.

Thanks,
--
Yoshifumi Nishida

---

From: Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 23:11:48 -0500

> I'm wondering why there was no support for this.

1) DTLS/SCTP gives up several features or adds limitations:
   a) Max datagram size
   b) Can't do reliable streams without another stream layer on top
   c) Extra call setup time even when not using data channels
   etc
2) WebRTC is not speced to be used except over ICE+UDP
3) Strong assertion by an SCTP RFC author that SCTP/DTLS is 
straightforward/easy (no surprise) and a good choice.

As described, it was not a controversial decision in the room after a 
fair bit of discussion.

-- 
Randell Jesup
[email-masked]

---

From: Stephan Wenger <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:34:15 -0800

Hi chairs,
Is there a reason why these two consensus calls are being reconfirmed on
the list, whereas the ROAP/JSEP consensus call is not reconfirmed (unless
I missed the email).  In the jabber transcript, this call is around 23:20,
and the consensus appeared to me to be considerably weaker than in the two
calls below...
Thanks,
Stephan

On 2.1.2012 16:02 , "Magnus Westerlund" <[email-masked]>
wrote:

>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Ted Hardie <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2012 13:28:19 -0800

Hi Stephan,

We want to be very careful in how we put the ROAP/JSEP-related
consensus call to the list, but
please be assured it will be confirmed on the list.

Ted

---

From: Salvatore Loreto <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:24:07 +0200

I agree on both

on using SCTP as transport protocol for data
and SCTP/DTLS/UDP

br
Salvatore

---

From: Stephen Botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 15:31:25 -0500

Just wondering if the IPR declaration on SCTP (
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1007/) was taken into account.

Regards
Stephen Botzko

---

From: Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 15:55:42 -0500

On 2/7/2012 3:31 PM, Stephen Botzko wrote:
> Just wondering if the IPR declaration on SCTP
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1007/) was taken into account.

Serious kitchen-sink IPR notice...  They even ding RFC 2168 (URIs).

They list RFC 4960, but give no idea what in it is covered.  Most of 
them are in some way related to ENUM or telephony signalling (E.164 and 
SS7 gatewaying/transport).

I have not looked at their patents directly, just the IPR notice.

-- 
Randell Jesup
[email-masked]

---

From: Stephen Botzko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 16:21:28 -0500

I haven't looked at the patents either (and don't intend to).  However,
taking it at face value -  it does not offer RF terms.

Regards,
Stephen Botzko

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 3:55 PM, Randell Jesup <[email-masked]>wrote:

>> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/**ipr/1007/<https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1007/>)
>> was taken into account.
>>
>
> They list RFC 4960, but give no idea what in it is covered.  Most of them
> are in some way related to ENUM or telephony signalling (E.164 and SS7
> gatewaying/transport).
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
>