Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Thu, 16 February 2017 17:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E651295BA for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:47:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QMAZN0MgO0Wo for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:47:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAB7F1294F1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 09:47:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.39] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v1GHlIY9010932 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:47:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.39]
From: "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com>
To: "Christer Holmberg" <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 11:47:18 -0600
Message-ID: <7E4962C5-52BB-416C-8C28-879F8F4ACEA4@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C004492@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <CABcZeBOK0T5WbMLi=AS3WOAjDt_D8e8JSTp2czSYdhHv8Xcgtw@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4C004492@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5344)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/tvgoxpJT58xfeWCYRPYzM5H-MJ0>
Cc: mmusic WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 17:47:24 -0000

On 16 Feb 2017, at 9:51, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Note that the mechanism is also used at least by CLUE, which does not 
> mandate ICE (or JSEP).

ISTM that this argument trumps the ongoing ICE usage discussion. Am I 
missing something?

Ben.