[MMUSIC] ICE and offer/answer terminology
Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> Wed, 05 March 2014 17:39 UTC
Return-Path: <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3681A0503 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:39:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.94
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.94 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HOST_MISMATCH_NET=0.311, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 omZMvHKHu4gT for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:39:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (sessmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.50]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC2321A0191 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 09:39:32 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb32-b7f4c8e0000012f5-f4-53176150b5b6
Received: from ESESSHC023.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg20.mgmt.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 2A.5B.04853.05167135; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:39:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB205.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.210]) by ESESSHC023.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Wed, 5 Mar 2014 18:39:28 +0100
From: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
To: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: ICE and offer/answer terminology
Thread-Index: AQHPOJna7SG03fIDLkewtCIdyBCjCw==
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:39:26 +0000
Message-ID: <9E803A35-8AF5-4F91-8280-0DD2263B71D5@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.150]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F8F84E16-9EAA-4395-BC68-B4BB99E218A3"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrGLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW5AoniwQfspDYupyx+zODB6LFny kymAMYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoEr48bOY4wFO0wrHrzaxtzAuNKoi5GTQ0LARGLLuafMELaYxIV7 69m6GLk4hAROMEr0PLzBBOEsZpRY9eA2E0gVm4C9xOQ1HxlBbBEBdYmve3vAuoUFNCU+330E FdeTeDzxA5y99Po9NhCbRUBF4tndTawgNi/QnPMfnrGD2IxAm7+fWgM2n1lAXOLWk/lMEBeJ SDy8eJoNwhaVePn4HyuErSSxYvslRpDjmAWmMEq8a/nCDjFUUOLkzCcsExiFZiGZNQtZ3Swk dRBF2hLLFr5mnsXIAWTrSExeyAgRNpV4ffQjlG0tMePXQTYIW1FiSvdD9gWMHKsYJYtTi4tz 040M9HLTc0v0Uosyk4uL8/P0ilM3MQLj5uCW30Y7GE/usT/EKM3BoiTOe521JkhIID2xJDU7 NbUgtSi+qDQntfgQIxMHp1QDY92Ep8leO3wfNRhcbXshGPP19YaN95tnimjP9+a2WLC3P3CK cv7Jd9vqjvCG50mIzj9wmoV7waqSaju/6JtiCa7L0vyy3F+/eTV3bfIK7bPpERlzmJ5xsLOn vGtk3r0nZ/XyaUqv934T9Ljy/0USY63IF780zRfXnydWWIWv+vpqR+3NJ787e5VYijMSDbWY i4oTAV8PpBZpAgAA
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/7FiwRbIi6O-naX1aqeteG6RdQqQ
Subject: [MMUSIC] ICE and offer/answer terminology
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 17:39:34 -0000
Hi all,
We didn't have time for this open issue on Monday meeting so we'll take it here on the list.
While ICE is no longer bound to SIP and SDP offer/answer, the document uses terms "offer" and "answer" heavily, starting in the title ("ICE: A Protocol for NAT Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols") and abstract ("ICE can be used by any protocol utilizing the offer/answer model [...]").
I think we need to update the title and abstract so that it's more clear that protocols that don't follow the o/a model are not excluded. Text suggestions are welcome. Maybe in title we call this just "ICE: A Protocol for NAT Traversal".
Then, throughout the text we need to refer to the exchange of candidates somehow. Originally this was referred to as the "SDP offer" and "SDP answer". Currently we use "ICE offer" and "ICE answer". My suggestion would be to keep the "(ICE) offer/answer" terminology here but clarify in the beginning of the document that with the offer and answer we refer to the ICE candidate exchange.
Opinions?
Cheers,
Ari
- Re: [MMUSIC] ICE and offer/answer terminology Justin Uberti
- [MMUSIC] ICE and offer/answer terminology Ari Keränen
- Re: [MMUSIC] ICE and offer/answer terminology Stach, Thomas
- Re: [MMUSIC] ICE and offer/answer terminology Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [MMUSIC] ICE and offer/answer terminology Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [MMUSIC] ICE and offer/answer terminology Emil Ivov
- Re: [MMUSIC] ICE and offer/answer terminology Ari Keränen