Re: [MMUSIC] FW: New Version Notification for draft-holmberg-mmusic-mux-exlusive-00.txt

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Another solution is to require ICE. It is already requirement for
WebRTC.  Unless ICE check completes for an address/port, nothing will be
sent there.

Furthermore, end point can put IP4 0.0.0.0 in c= line and and not specify
the candidates for RTCP components. If not RTCP components are specified
and rtcp-mux is not used, there is not going to be a destination to send
RTCP. Alternatively offerer can specify the same IP and port in candidates
for both RTP and RTCP components. Offerer should already select safe
payload types for rtcp-mux and answerer will send both RTP and RTCP packets
to the same port.

SDP rtcp attribute is broken since there is no way to determine if it was
understood by the remote party. It would be better if it was retired
instead of finding new ways to use it.

Finally any deployments on open networks which do not require consent to
send data are dangerous and should be discouraged. So, I strongly suggest
that anything new should be built around ICE. This is why ICE is required
for WebRTC. Anything else is already built assuming some sort of
pre-negotiation is already in place and it is typically already known if
remote party supports rtcp-mux or rtcp attribute.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount