Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"

[Cullen Jennings <[e-mail]>]

I'm confused on what you are trying to say. Are you saying 

1) we don't need trickle ICE

2) we can do trickily ICE but no standards need to be written for two different devices to do trickle ICE


On Aug 24, 2012, at 9:56 , Martin Thomson wrote:

> On 24 August 2012 09:42, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> I'm not following what you are saying here. Ignoring the question of
>> non-trickle (i.e., strict RFC 5245) endpoints, if you are a trickle endpoint
>> that gives up under conditions when RFC 5245 says you should give
>> up, you are likely to have problems.
> 
> If you are a trickle endpoint, then you are not implementing RFC 5245.
> RFC 5245 might not explicitly exclude the possibility, but it is
> certainly implicit, as the problems you cite in your email attest.
> 
> What I think we want to with trickle is to create a new method.  That
> method is only like RFC 5245 to the extent that it shares some
> properties: the good parts.
> 
>> You don't think it's worth writing
>> that down somewhere more permanent/definitive than an email
>> to the mailing list?
> 
> Only if it addresses a specific interoperability need does it need to
> be in an RFC.
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb