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

[Magnus Westerlund <[e-mail]>]

On 2012-07-06 08:25, Sunyang (Eric) wrote:
> Do we really need this? 

That is part of what I am trying to determine.

> If we start a new specification about ICE, do
> we need integrate the final part of ICE specification with JSEP, this
> will need extra work to make them meet.

My personal understanding of the relations are the following

The basic functionality is to establish functional datagram transport
flow or flows (depending on signalling) between WebRTC peers. The
established datagram transport flow is used by the RTP session(s),
DTLS-SRTP key-management establishment and SCTP over DTLS.

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.

There is also the issue of ensuring that they can all operate on the
same datagram flow. This however has been reduced to be STUN, RTP and
DTLS. Where DTLS must separate DTLS-SRTP messages from the regular DTLS
protected data flow which contains SCTP packets. But, the first is
actually well described in the DTLS-SRTP spec.

When it comes to JSEP it clearly is the signalling part that enables the
establishment of the datagram transport flow. It is also crucial in the
maintenance of it, for example re-establishing in case of used
interfaces going down etc.

In this we also have the question about the ICE variant we intended to
use which supports trickle candidates. There are no IETF specification
for it. That appears to be needed to be created. This is not work for
this WG. The appropriate home for such work is most likely MMUSIC.

In addition we still have the need for someone to define what ICE and
what additional tools we need. We also have certain API requirements
from this. Like the configuration of STUN and TURN and any additional
relay like solution we have for the HTTP fallback.

It could be that JSEP spec is a good enough home for this. It might be
that we would get a better separation of work and cleaner referencing if
we create a separate specification.

Cheers


Magnus Westerlund

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ericsson AB                | Phone  [phone]
Färögatan 6                | Mobile [phone]
SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: [e-mail]
----------------------------------------------------------------------