IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] non-SIP ICE: useful or not?

"Sumanth Channabasappa" <sumanth@cablelabs.com> Tue, 29 July 2008 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <mmusic-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: mmusic-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-mmusic-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18ADA3A6AB2; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: mmusic@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E816E28C233 for <mmusic@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.829
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.829 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.291, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_MODEMCABLE=0.768, HOST_EQ_MODEMCABLE=1.368, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BV-4hCQvCEBK for <mmusic@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:40:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ondar.cablelabs.com (ondar.cablelabs.com [192.160.73.61]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D2063A69B8 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:40:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kyzyl.cablelabs.com (kyzyl [10.253.0.7]) by ondar.cablelabs.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m6T9eVBm017291 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:40:31 -0600
Received: from srvxchg3.cablelabs.com (10.5.0.25) by kyzyl.cablelabs.com (F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/511/kyzyl.cablelabs.com); Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:40:31 -0700 (MST)
X-Virus-Status: clean(F-Secure/fsigk_smtp/511/kyzyl.cablelabs.com)
X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 03:40:29 -0600
Message-ID: <9AAEDF491EF7CA48AB587781B8F5D7C60131FFC5@srvxchg3.cablelabs.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Re: [MMUSIC] non-SIP ICE: useful or not?
Thread-Index: AcjxXyN1pbSXr5tTQoW/70CgZmb0sA==
From: Sumanth Channabasappa <sumanth@cablelabs.com>
To: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Approved: ondar
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] non-SIP ICE: useful or not?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1455605367=="
Sender: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org

Find my thoughts inline (marked with [S])...

 

 

I'd like to get some discussion going around this question prior to the
meeting. Please take a look at: 

 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-01
.txt
 

The main question: is a draft like this sufficiently useful to produce
or not? 

[S] I think it is useful.

 

<snip>

 

Comments on details welcome too, though secondary I think to the main
question. 

[S] There are deployments where SIP-based architectures also plan (or
need) to support non-SIP clients. In such cases, it will be useful to
employ a single NAT traversal mechanism which will facilitate the reuse
of the existing infrastructure (with minimal changes). 

 

- S

 
 

 


_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email