Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Tue, 04 October 2011 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
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 664F621F8C53 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.559 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.036, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FRT_BELOW2=2.154, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 DYbVH4W5m3Od for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:41:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vx0-f172.google.com (mail-vx0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEC1B21F8BAD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by vcbfo11 with SMTP id fo11so543602vcb.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.186.134 with SMTP id fk6mr1138387vdc.380.1317739463781; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 07:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.118.143 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 07:44:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E8B192E.80809@ericsson.com>
References: <4E8B192E.80809@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 16:44:23 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmnxO+BrfycOmL=hptBFdcEpsLeBn=zsJTX=ivKBBumWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?I=C3=B1aki_Baz_Castillo?= <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 14:41:20 -0000

2011/10/4 Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>;:
> I have bellow tired to summarize the result of the ICE discussion. This
> is intended as furthering this discussion and form a basis for going
> forward in the consensus process. I do expect people that disagree with
> my summary of the discussion to speak up.
>
> Major requirements
>
> - Need for data transmission consent for protocols using UDP as the
> traffic receiver needs to consent to receiving the data
>
> - Perform NAT and FW traversal when ever needed
>
> - Support IPv4 to IPv6 transition
>
> Desired behavior:
>
> - Be interoperable with deployed legacy systems as SIP Trunk, PSTN
> gateways, VoIP phones.
>
> WG chairs conclusion of discussion so far:
>
> - ICE is so far the only solution that provides the security goals and
> have any legacy deployment.
>
> - ICE usage will require that STUN connectivity MUST have succeeded
> prior to any data transmission to fulfill security goals.
>
>  * The Browser will enforce this requirement to prevent being an attack
> vector in all cases.
>
> - If anyone can find a solution that fulfill the security goals and have
> improved legacy interoperability people would be interested in that
> solution. So far RTCP has been discarded as insufficient.
>
> - Media Gateway can support a reduced functionality set from Full ICE


I agree with all the above.


-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>;