[MMUSIC] New version of the proposed charter

Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org> Wed, 02 September 2015 12:21 UTC

Return-Path: <petithug@acm.org>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF26D1B39CB; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 05:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.663
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.663 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4L_BD0m-LXuf; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 05:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from implementers.org (implementers.org [IPv6:2604:3400:dc1:41:216:3eff:fe5b:8240]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 210231B32E2; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 05:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2602:61:753a:ca00:3875:3a56:d1fa:6aa] (unknown [IPv6:2602:61:753a:ca00:3875:3a56:d1fa:6aa]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "Marc Petit-Huguenin", Issuer "implementers.org" (verified OK)) by implementers.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 366FC203C5; Wed, 2 Sep 2015 14:21:04 +0200 (CEST)
To: ice@ietf.org
Followup-To: ice@ietf.org
From: Marc Petit-Huguenin <petithug@acm.org>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <55E6E9AE.7080400@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 06:21:02 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/_r1-BPDLjY6m_pRJDPNqGDq9FXo>
Cc: DISPATCH list <dispatch@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: [MMUSIC] New version of the proposed charter
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Sep 2015 12:21:08 -0000

Hash: SHA256

Please find below a new version of the proposed charter, trying to take in account all the comments so far.

The discussions are taking place in the ice mailing-list, please do not cross-post.


- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charter for Working Group

Interactive Connectivity Establishment was published as RFC 5245 in April 2010. Until recently the protocol had seen rather limited deployment. ICE was slow to achieve widespread adoption, as other mechanisms were already being used by the VoIP industry. 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.

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. The IP addresses and ports provided by each side are paired and tested by peer-to-peer connectivity checks until one of these pair is selected to transport data. ICE follows the end to end principle where the clients themselves discovers, test and choose the network path to use. It makes no assumptions regarding network topology on the local or remote side.

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 ICE to make it more suitable for the WebRTC environment but also to all the current usages of ICE. 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 synchronised with the work in this working group. Synching with other network related working groups to make sure existing mechanisms like QoS, congestion control and other networking mechanisms still work would be essential if we want to improve how ICE works (MIF, TAPS, TSWG, HOMENET, etc...). 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 essential (RTCWEB, HIP, MMUSIC, P2PSIP).


    Jun 2016 Submit Dual-stack Fairness with ICE as Proposed Standard
    Apr 2016 Submit a revision of ICE (RFC 5245) as Proposed Standard
    Jan 2016 Submit Trickle ICE as Proposed Standard

- -- 
Marc Petit-Huguenin
Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org
Blog: http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org
Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/petithug
Version: GnuPG v2