Re: [AVTCORE] I-D Action: draft-ietf-avtcore-rfc5764-mux-fixes-01.txt

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 03/24/2015 04:49 PM, Magnus Westerlund wrote:
> Marc,
> 
> I really wonder if the SCTP over UDP allocation should be in this draft.
> I definitely don't think the motivation that is present in Section 1.2
> is reason for this document to perform an allocation.
> 
> I think that allocation should happen at the time when there actually
> are consensus on using SCTP over UDP in a setting which requires
> demultiplexing with STUN etc. Currently we appear to be missing quite a
> bit of glue between SCTP over UDP (RFC6951) and using ICE to establish
> that UDP flow for it.


Please note that STUN over SCTP over UDP has nothing to do with ICE, but with using ORIGIN with TURN allocation.

> 
> And based on the discussion in the WG today, I think there is no
> consensus for this part, thus I would like you to remove it until a
> consensus for including this in this document exists.

OK.

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: [e-mail]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=NwPM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----