Re: [rtcweb] HIP option for draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview and which ICE?

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 29 September 2011 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 D47BA21F8B89 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:21:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.697
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.902, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 sUyGZgWY3FNW for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 523E121F8AED for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 00:21:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CD2339E08A; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:24:39 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i6di3EZkZypg; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:24:38 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.14] (c213-89-141-213.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.141.213]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F2A739E088; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:24:38 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E841D36.6050802@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:24:38 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Thunderbird/3.1.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
References: <CAA91114.1E070%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA91114.1E070%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, lars.eggert@nokia.com, quittek@nw.neclab.eu
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] HIP option for draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview and which ICE?
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, 29 Sep 2011 07:21:51 -0000

On 09/29/2011 12:59 AM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>> Comments are always welcome
> The short mention of the ICE Agent in draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-01 may need
> some more explanation if SIP oriented ICE is implied and if not, the flavors
> of ICE for other protocols, such as Jingle which has different signaling, as
> mentioned in the I-D, or/and need other extensions, such as for RTSP
> (draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat).
>
> The draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nosip from 2009 explains these issues,
> including the fact that not all protocols can use ICE.
>
> Since SIP may or may not be the signaling protocol, the implied meaning (or
> is it?) should be explained along with the issues and options.
That is good fodder for the NAT traversal draft. I think it is too 
detailed for the overview.
> One option that comes to mind is using HIP with its own ICE solution
> (RFC5207) but having the advantage of working with _all_ application
> protocols, besides transition to IPv6, mobility and VPN-like security.
> For maximum flexibility and applicability IMO in environments using HIP.
Henry, nobody but you has argued for HIP.

> Some more text is desirable discussing the above.
>
> I have taken the liberty to copy the authors of RFC 5207.
>
> Thanks, Henry
>
>
> On 9/28/11 7:09 AM, "Harald Alvestrand"<harald@alvestrand.no>  wrote:
>
>> I've just posted version -02 of the -overview document.
>> I'll just paste the change log from the document here:
>>
>>> A.6.  Changes from draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview -01 to -02
>>>
>>>     Added pointers to use cases, security and rtp-usage drafts (now WG
>>>     drafts).
>>>
>>>     Changed description of SRTP from mandatory-to-use to mandatory-to-
>>>     implement.
>>>
>>>     Added the "3 principles of negotiation" to the connection management
>>>     section.
>>>
>>>     Added an explicit statement that ICE is required for both NAT and
>>>     consent-to-receive.
>> Comments are always welcome, and version numbers are cheap!
>>
>> A note on making the finding of such easy:
>> When I prepare a new version of a draft, I'll go back to the mailing
>> list and search for subjects containing the draft name, or some subset
>> of that ("overview" in this case), and dated between the previous
>> version and this version.
>>
>> Starting the subject line with "ISSUE:" or "CHANGE:" is also good for
>> catching my attention when I'm trying to re-locate those comments.
>>
>> Suggestions for changes that occur deep within a thread on other topics
>> have a high chance of getting lost in this process, unfortunately.
>>
>> Enjoy the reading!
>>
>>                         Harald
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list
>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>