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

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 8:57 AM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> >What I am trying to say is that I do not see future versions of ICE
> running without DTLS, so strategically it would be better to extend DTLS to
> include ICE functionality and end up with a single consistent secure
> protocol.
>
> DTLS 1.4 :)
>

Or DTLS 2.0. In any case not now, but may be in the future.


> For now, my suggestion is still to use the SDP connection:new attribute.
> It's a relatively simple thing to do, and it does not require big re-work
> of the DTLS and ICE.
>
> Unless I've missed it, I have not seen any input why it would not work.
>

I agree. I cannot see any reason why "connection:new" should not work for
now. Furthermore, at least for me, it would solve some real implementation
problems.


> >One more thing: DTLS would also need to be extended to work well with
> offer/answer and bundle. This would means some sort of ID field, similar to
> RTP SSRC in all DTLS packets to allow to multiplex multiple DTLS sessions
> over the same transport channel both during setup and normal operations.
>
> Not sure I understand. BUNDLE uses a single DTLS session for all media
> associated with a 5-tuple.
>

BUNDLE was designed around the DTLS limitations so it is using a single
DTLS session. This means, for instance, that you cannot BUNDLE data channel
and BFCP. This is fine for now, but not ideal from long-term, "strategic",
point of view.
_____________
Roman Shpount