[rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion

Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> Tue, 04 October 2011 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6A2D21F8D52 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.411
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.966, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_BELOW2=2.154, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QD4N9ySM7xZN for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (mailgw9.se.ericsson.net []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE70F21F8D47 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb39-b7bfdae000005125-ac-4e8b196a0ab6
Received: from esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by mailgw9.se.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 8D.15.20773.A691B8E4; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:34:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [] ( by esessmw0256.eemea.ericsson.se ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:33:22 +0200
Message-ID: <4E8B192E.80809@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:33:18 +0200
From: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110922 Thunderbird/7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA==
Subject: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:31:14 -0000


I have bellow tired to summarize the result of the ICE discussion. This
is intended as furthering this discussion and form a basis for going
forward in the consensus process. I do expect people that disagree with
my summary of the discussion to speak up.

Major requirements

- Need for data transmission consent for protocols using UDP as the
traffic receiver needs to consent to receiving the data

- Perform NAT and FW traversal when ever needed

- Support IPv4 to IPv6 transition

Desired behavior:

- Be interoperable with deployed legacy systems as SIP Trunk, PSTN
gateways, VoIP phones.

WG chairs conclusion of discussion so far:

- ICE is so far the only solution that provides the security goals and
have any legacy deployment.

- ICE usage will require that STUN connectivity MUST have succeeded
prior to any data transmission to fulfill security goals.

  * The Browser will enforce this requirement to prevent being an attack
vector in all cases.

- If anyone can find a solution that fulfill the security goals and have
improved legacy interoperability people would be interested in that
solution. So far RTCP has been discarded as insufficient.

- Media Gateway can support a reduced functionality set from Full ICE


Magnus Westerlund
as WG chair

Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com