Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ???
"Wilson Chen (weichen2)" <weichen2@cisco.com> Fri, 07 February 2014 01:56 UTC
Return-Path: <weichen2@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B9C31A0598 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:56:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.036
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tb0gVK1xa25t for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:56:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42E81A0587 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 17:56:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2222; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1391738204; x=1392947804; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=v37/s7TOl/lSDuPDtKz/vzodav+10nwc/DUFt1/UKpY=; b=QCqdjLJnLjDmPtvrhCTNlHSlcHeH23z0MFOwtnP25vnobKbIJcyBaXJo Y7gvcE7VGmxeckQ/hfR+TNWyQPTH+OZKXHz3VED/w5B8krrR/nKDMQLUR Q45Kwu+kisfWZZiDH3u3H9mCZetveoM5+JbigRO3aMLlhx2Guj7YEURGy Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhAFAAA99FKtJV2c/2dsb2JhbABZgww4V4MBu3cYdxZ0giUBAQEEIxFVAgEGAhEEAQEDAgYdAwICAh8RFAEICAIEARIIh2kDEQ2QFZt9mA8NiGoXgSmLO4E0EQEfOIJvNYEUAQOWP4MeiyyFQ4MtgXE5
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,797,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="302439569"
Received: from rcdn-core-5.cisco.com ([173.37.93.156]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Feb 2014 01:56:43 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s171uhSG032042 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Feb 2014 01:56:43 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com ([169.254.9.201]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 6 Feb 2014 19:56:42 -0600
From: "Wilson Chen (weichen2)" <weichen2@cisco.com>
To: Justin Uberti <justin@uberti.name>, Rachel Dvori <rachel.dvori@gmail.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ???
Thread-Index: AQHPI3s2hX15LOCWGkythRPnivQAYZqpBjBg
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 01:56:43 +0000
Message-ID: <3A5DAAA1FDD9764EAA3B2A633A91A0495F8B49D5@xmb-aln-x15.cisco.com>
References: <CANCLmwniOd1MmdubfhARB0iCZTK1BYW46fwpDvus=UvOE2ynZg@mail.gmail.com> <CALe60zDC8Y_CspF3rkvqqcbP0_yWVviiFqq31R9gjq+GOW=7Xw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALe60zDC8Y_CspF3rkvqqcbP0_yWVviiFqq31R9gjq+GOW=7Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.140.48.196]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ???
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 01:56:46 -0000
In case of negotiating with server (may be a gateway), IMHO, the server would like not to do connectivity check, it is simpler and faster to work in ice-lite and passive mode. Thanks, Wilson Chen From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Uberti Sent: 2014年2月7日 3:56 To: Rachel Dvori; rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ??? +rtcweb WebRTC endpoints must implement full ICE. Legacy (non-WebRTC) endpoints can use ICE Lite, but as mentioned in RFC5245, S 2.7, full ICE is preferred. On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Rachel Dvori <rachel.dvori@gmail.com> wrote: draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep@tools.ietf.org Dear Person, I have seen the below in the draft of: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-05 Attributes other than the ones specified above MAY be included, except for the following attributes which are specifically incompatible with the requirements of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage], and MUST NOT be included: o "a=crypto" o "a=key-mgmt" o "a=ice-lite" But in draft of : http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-11 There is no phrase that prevents a WebRTC user to be ice-lite Can you pls clarify: - Where is it mentioned that ice-lite cannot be one of the participants of WebRTC - What is the reason that no side can be ice-lite (as if one side is full-ice, there is still STUN and connectivity checks etc. Thanks RD p.s. - what is the correct email address for this type of questions ? (Thanks and sorry)
- Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ??? Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ??? Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ??? Wilson Chen (weichen2)
- Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ??? Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ??? Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ??? Parthasarathi R
- Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ??? Sergio Garcia Murillo