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

Reading the message below, it is not clear to me whether the items described fit into a single document. 

I could see a document relating to ICE in the WebRTC context.  This would include material on liveness, consent, STUN/TURN/TURN-TCP, and HTTP fallback.  I would also like to see it cover a bit about flag usage, and perhaps an analysis of some of the ICE security issues that Eric brought up at the Interim.  

Overall, the document should retain compatibility with RFC 5245 as much as possible, not defining new (and non-backward compatible) functionality. 

If the material about data transport is unrelated to ICE, then it might better belong in the data channel document. 

Similarly with respect to API, signaling or configuration material.  

> |-----Original Message-----
> |From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund
> |Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 12:31 PM
> |To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> |Subject: [rtcweb] Where to specify ICE usage and the common transport
> |
> |WG,
> |
> |We chairs have identified that we currently we are missing specification
> |text for one of the key components of RTCWEB. This component is how
> |WebRTC uses ICE and defines the datagram transport that both the
> |DTLS/SCTP data channel uses and the RTP session.
> |
> |Such a specification would most likely contain the following:
> |
> |- How ICE is used in the WebRTC context
> |- Inclusion of STUN, TURN, TURN-TCP
> |- Inclusion of any defined "HTTP fallback"
> |- Description of the data transport in general and specifically how one
> |  can separate the traffic from the data channel and RTP session.
> |- Requirements on the signalling and API and what configuration data is
> |  needed.
> |
> |My personal view is that this is best served by having its own
> |specification. Alternatives that exist is to include it either in the
> |data channel or RTP usage specifications.
> |
> |Thus we chairs would appreciate feedback on at least two things:
> |
> |- Is specifying this in its own specification the most suitable approach
> |
> |- Do we have any volunteers for writing such a specification?
> |
> |Cheers
> |
> |Magnus Westerlund
> |
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------
> |Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------
> |Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
> |Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
> |SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
> |----------------------------------------------------------------------
> |
> |
> |_______________________________________________
> |rtcweb mailing list
> |rtcweb@ietf.org
> |https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb