IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?

Paul Kyzivat <paul.kyzivat@comcast.net> Thu, 16 February 2017 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.kyzivat@comcast.net>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 923B2129526 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:19:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=comcast.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qVYVczya0kNP for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:19:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net (resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net [IPv6:2001:558:fe16:19:96:114:154:169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99F9E1293EE for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:19:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from resomta-po-17v.sys.comcast.net ([96.114.154.241]) by resqmta-po-10v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id eVHbcZG63OhhfeVKfc0q2Y; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:19:25 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20161114; t=1487287165; bh=FrX4Jh6Ys3VmK8wLZcof9gqSXs4BFpZo+P8hl58NUn0=; h=Received:Received:Subject:To:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Content-Type; b=UqOQ5cRfQD8ZHgGxTbEEtR8HzrpGUARVio43vJ+6SHFGbIFVifZPuxzaGxFSW+dVB RCAmiEAMOSgpMxhVsuwuxNtvWCEfAV3pyogzI4534EUDZc+AmI/XofzmmG3Y9KvrQo OifPvsozVOFmaHi/szuLm3yYIH6jAR/Q+K7Bi4Tyxd0lhsngew3EaLvyF+pEZ7SbCt Bgkith0HeOODu0NhoTb7/EMYXAczFTQ/q/yT/Pv+2SKI4C0rOLeW9qs5/NQ3TRyqpd d+KfbB6IzS2Q26sSHP6BeqakkFHxPjWZuUi8P7O/YnL36xyz04VyMTjc6MqUogutPn qcnzUqGpw//YA==
Received: from [192.168.1.110] ([73.186.127.100]) by resomta-po-17v.sys.comcast.net with SMTP id eVKecT4Nve3QFeVKecrP6m; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:19:25 +0000
To: mmusic@ietf.org
References: <CABcZeBOK0T5WbMLi=AS3WOAjDt_D8e8JSTp2czSYdhHv8Xcgtw@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C004492@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7E4962C5-52BB-416C-8C28-879F8F4ACEA4@nostrum.com>
From: Paul Kyzivat <paul.kyzivat@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <227192a1-f63d-f2d1-3eb3-53a31d5bc32e@comcast.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:19:24 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7E4962C5-52BB-416C-8C28-879F8F4ACEA4@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfDqNPgNy9zNvZ5QMKxtJD98Xk0pEkE2VBT/sErien1oFTNebubDQcT7Is9WeekzOfLkNdVAPQZVyDxu9Nu5Z2uuTbDsRLAM5GYOQJ3l9wvzvsHk2oY1i hfbU+rUavx9tXyh1oX9UOZ8hiV4tDOrIMbvi1EmA0J6+CkBNpwtrggsE6P7/cSiA+i5Dx4EoIbRhcw==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/74oLRr16WAyz4fmy0uPQ-v0Tu4w>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:19:27 -0000

On 2/16/17 12:47 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> On 16 Feb 2017, at 9:51, Christer Holmberg wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Note that the mechanism is also used at least by CLUE, which does not
>> mandate ICE (or JSEP).
>
> ISTM that this argument trumps the ongoing ICE usage discussion. Am I
> missing something?

First, lets note that TCP/DTLS/SCTP is never a desirable thing. It is 
simply a fallback for when for some reason UDP/DTLS/SCTP is impossible.

So something attempting */DTLS/SCTP without ICE would need to have some 
other knowledge that UDP was impossible. This is of course *possible*. I 
don't know how probable a use case it is for something new now that ICE 
exists.

IMO this is really another piece of evidence that we ought to have ICE 
as a transport: ICE/DTLS/SCTP.

	Thanks,
	Paul

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email