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

I definitely think this is useful.  To me, we need to standardize
NAT/firewall traversal for as many protocols as possible with as few
rewrites as possible.  ICE should be able to work with everything from
XMPP to JXTA to Flash Media Server rendezvous.  Deployments should
ideally be able to swap signaling/session protocols without touching
ICE, although I understand that's unlikely to happen.

In my case, I'm seriously considering swapping SIP for XMPP, and I'd
imagine that's a common scenario.

Best,
-Adam

On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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? Given its main audience are the (relatively few) protocol designers of
> things using ICE, there is an argument to be made we don't really need this.
> I'd especially welcome comments from Miika, Magnus, Hannes and other folks
> actually producing documents that would use the contents here.
>
> Comments on details welcome too, though secondary I think to the main
> question.
>
> Thanks,
> Jonathan R.
> --
> Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   499 Thornall St.
> Cisco Fellow                                   Edison, NJ 08837
> Cisco, Voice Technology Group
> jdrosen@cisco.com
> http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (408) 902-3084
> http://www.cisco.com
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>

-- 
http://www.littleshoot.org
Open Source, Open Standards, Open Data
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic