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

Marc Petit-Huguenin <> Tue, 29 September 2015 10:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE22D1A0083; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 03:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.236
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j1NchI6LRpK1; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 03:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D771A001D; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 03:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2602:61:753a:ca00:a539:618b:e94c:b0e8] (unknown [IPv6:2602:61:753a:ca00:a539:618b:e94c:b0e8]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "" (verified OK)) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BCCA200AE; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:36:10 +0200 (CEST)
To: Ben Campbell <>, Pal Martinsen <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 04:36:08 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <>
Cc: mmusic <>,
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] [Ice] ICE WG Charter version 2 (Proposed changes)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 10:36:15 -0000

Hash: SHA256

Looks good to me.


On 09/28/2015 07:27 PM, Ben Campbell wrote:
> I went ahead and updated this in the tracker, since the IESG review is coming up soon. I made a few of very minor edits. Please take a look and let me know asap if anything doesn't look right.
> Thanks!
> Ben.
> On 28 Sep 2015, at 14:54, Ben Campbell wrote:
>> 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:
>>> - 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).

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Version: GnuPG v2