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

[Marc Petit-Huguenin <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

Looks good to me.

Thanks.

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.
> 
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-ice/
> 
> 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: https://github.com/petithug/icewg/pull/5)
>>>
>>> - 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
Email: [e-mail]
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=2ol6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----