Re: [MMUSIC] SCTP-SDP: Virtual Connection impact

[Paul Kyzivat <[e-mail]>]

On 4/15/15 2:16 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Simon Perreault <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Le 2015-04-15 04:22, Christer Holmberg a écrit :
>     >>From my personal point of view, DTLS in combination with ICE is a design mess. It would be much cleaner and strategic if instead two separate protocols this was a single protocol which was responsible for authentication, encryption negotiation, connection path discovery, path updates, and communication >consent. These are closely related tasks and ideally they should be handled together instead of one on top of the other.
>     >
>     > So, what is your suggestion? :)
>
>     I feel Christer's pain. This has been discussed to death. We have
>     reached the point where it's "text or STFU". I don't care about this
>     anymore so I'll STFU.
>
>
> For the sake of history, Christer suggested using connection:new with
> DTLS in offer/answer. Paul asked if this is "strategic" enough. I sent
> the response that strategic solution would be to fix DTLS/ICE combo and
> make it a single multi-path secure protocol. If needed, I can try to
> write a draft for such protocol which combines DTLS and ICE
> functionality. This is not the hard part. The hard part is convincing
> others (primarily browser vendors) that they should adopt this. So, if
> anybody is interested in such new protocol, let me know. Otherwise I
> would shut up and wait for ICE/DTLS problems either get resolved or
> become so bad that the new protocol would be unavoidable.

I didn't intend to propose that the tactical solution not be done.
A strategic one will take longer than people want to wait.

But I did mean to suggest that we ought to start looking at the 
strategic solution - that ICE ought to simply be one way to discover 
multiple paths for a multipath transport, rather than being used in lieu 
of defining multipath versions of those transports.

	Thanks,
	Paul

	Thanks,
	Paul