Re: [P2PSIP] ICE Candidate Encoding

Cullen Jennings wrote:
> 
> The current draft uses a string encoding for ICE candidates ripped
> off from when it had to be represented in SDP. This has the advantage
> of easy compatibility with ICE stacks, but the disadvantage that,
> well, it's gross, and not easy to parse if you don't do ICE.
> _______________________________________________
> P2PSIP mailing list
> P2PSIP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
> 

Jonathan's current ice-nonsip draft has a brief section on what 
parameters are required 
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-01.html#section-5.2.2). 
  Assuming this draft starts to get traction, I would like to suggest 
reload discusses its requirements in reference to this draft (single 
component, no default candidates, etc, etc) and then specify a binary 
encoding of the parameters using the same syntax as the rest of reload. 
  (unless ice-nonsip evolves into something that specifies an encoding 
itself.)

 From my experience and talking with others who have implemented ICE, 
the on-wire encoding is a pretty simple translation thrown on top of the 
ICE library, so there should be no reason to preserve SDP syntax.

Bruce

_______________________________________________
P2PSIP mailing list
P2PSIP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip