Re: [MMUSIC] [Ice] ICE WG Charter version 2 (Proposed changes)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

I think this version looks good enough for the IESG internal review. 
Unless I see an objection really soon now, I will update the charter in 
the datatracker to match.


Thanks!

Ben.

On 25 Sep 2015, at 4:18, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Based on mailing-list discussions i propose the following changes:
> (A pull request can be found at: 
> https://github.com/petithug/icewg/pull/5)
>
> - Merge section 1 and 3. Moved former 2 to 1.
> Better introduction to what ICE is and having all the history in the 
> same section. The intended effect of the edit is to emphasise the 
> versatility of ICE and maybe attract more “network” people to 
> attend join the wg.
>
> - Rewrote the start of the goal section to pass strict parsers.
> “The goal of the ICE Working Group is to consolidate the various 
> initiatives to update and improve ICE, and to help ensure suitability 
> and consistency in the environments ICE operates in.”
>
> I wanted to remove webRTC from the sentence. If WG FOO comes with the 
> same amount of positive energy to help improve ICE  I think it would 
> deserve to get the same amount of attention.
>
>
> The charter would then look like:
>
> Charter for Working Group
>
> Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) is at the same time a NAT 
> traversal technique, a multihomed address selection technique, and a 
> dual stack address selection technique that works by including a 
> multiplicity of IP addresses and ports in both the request and 
> response messages of a connectivity establishment transaction. It 
> makes no assumptions regarding network topology on the local or remote 
> side.
>
> Interactive Connectivity Establishment was published as RFC 5245 in 
> April 2010. Until recently the protocol had seen rather limited 
> deployment. This situation has changed drastically as ICE is mandatory 
> to implement
> in WebRTC, a set of technologies developed at the IETF and W3C to 
> standardize Real Time Communication on the Web. ICE was originally 
> defined for the Offer-Answer (RFC 3264) protocol used by SIP (RFC 
> 3261). Later XMPP (XEP-0176), RTSP (draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat), 
> RTCWeb (draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep) and other realtime media establishment 
> protocol have used the protocol. ICE is also used by non-realtime 
> media protocols, like HIP (RFC 5770) and RELOAD (RFC 6940).
>
> The goal of the ICE Working Group is to consolidate the various 
> initiatives to update and improve ICE, and to help ensure suitability 
> and consistency in the environments ICE operates in. Current work in 
> this area includes an updated version of the ICE RFC (ICEbis), Trickle 
> ICE and dualstack/multihomed fairness. It is worth noticing that this 
> work will make ICE more flexible, robust and more suitable for 
> changing mobile environments without major changes to the original ICE 
> RFC. The ICE workgroup will consider new work items that follow this 
> pattern.
>
> ICE is an application controlled protocol that leverages a set of 
> network defined protocols. The STUN (RFC 5389), TURN (RFC 5766) and 
> related protocol work done in the TRAM working group must be closely 
> synchronized with the work in this working group. To avoid 
> interoperability issues and unwanted behavior it is desired to 
> increase the interaction with other working groups dealing with 
> network protocols closer to the wire. Example of such work may be, but 
> not limited to; issues regarding multi-homing, multi subnet and 
> prefixes, QoS, transport selection and congestion control. From the 
> application side, the users of ICE, there is a need to make sure what 
> is specified is actually usable. Getting input from the application 
> working groups will be helpful (RTCWEB, HIP, MMUSIC, P2PSIP, PPSP).
>
>
> .-.
> Pål-Erik
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ice mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice