Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-00

Hey folks,

On 25.07.13, 20:36, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> Are you sure a new type is needed? The existing types are rather
> generic, aren't they?

Back in Boston we decided to do something like this:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-dispatch-sdpfrag-00

More below:

> On 25.07.13, 19:09, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
>
> Section 4 says that trickled candidates are transported as INFO payloads
> containing SDP formatted according to ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice. But
> AFAICT that draft doesn't specify this.

Well, it just borrows the format from 5245 and says that this is how you 
represent trickled candidates.

> Also the example in this section
> shows an info payload that contains only a subset of SDP, and doesn't
> conform to mime type application/sdp.

Yup, should be application/sdpfrag.

> Section 5.6 again references the trickle-ice draft (section 4) for
> definition of the body of the info message, but that section of that
> draft doesn't contain any such definition.

Will need to fix.

> Aside from that, it occurs to me that trickle-ice, and for that matter
> ice in sip even without trickle, is a good candidate for preconditions.
> The use of preconditions could eliminate the need for half trickle. This
> would of course require a new precondition type, but that is doable.

Hmmm ... that's a good point!

> By using preconditions, you can establish the dialog without alerting
> the callee. Then the alert can be deferred until at least one workable
> path has been detected.
>
> (But I suppose the hate for preconditions is so great that this is not
> to be considered.)

Well, it doesn't have to be mandatory ...

Emil

>
>          Thanks,
>          Paul
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

-- 
https://jitsi.org