IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Where to specify ICE usage and the common transport

Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> Thu, 12 July 2012 04:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fluffy@iii.ca>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 987F611E80DE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cGsd6ev+IH4D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mxout-07.mxes.net (mxout-07.mxes.net [216.86.168.182]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE5811E80A4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc-vpn7-950.cisco.com (unknown [128.107.239.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A3DEF22E257; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 00:31:36 -0400 (EDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
From: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <4FF693EE.8030905@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 21:31:32 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4DACB02C-1828-40E9-9500-2D528B0E2BFB@iii.ca>
References: <E721D8C6A2E1544DB2DEBC313AF54DE20129FC7B@xmb-rcd-x02.cisco.com> <CC1C7546.2BA3A%rmohanr@cisco.com> <9254B5E6361B1648AFC00BA447E6E8C32AEB70A0@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <4FF693EE.8030905@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Where to specify ICE usage and the common transport
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: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 04:31:12 -0000

On Jul 6, 2012, at 24:29 , Magnus Westerlund wrote:

> The last part points to that we have 2 or 3 (depending on how you see
> DTLS-SRTP) users of the datagram transport flow. As co-author of one of
> those documents I would like to have a single point to reference.

Why does your document need a reference to something that says if we have a UDP over HTTP mechanism or not? I'm worried that we are creating some ugly interdependencies in the layering that are not needed. 

I agree work is needed in MMUSIC for trickle ICE, but I'm still not seeing the rest of this. 

Obviously doing a UDP over HTTP or doing a TURN that looks like HTTP thing would need a spec. That will be highly controversial at IETF given it is fundamentally about doing something through a firewall that directly go against the wishes of the firewall administrator.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email