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

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
>
>
>
>