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

Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com> Wed, 28 September 2011 22:57 UTC

Return-Path: <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CD2911E8091 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:57:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.228
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.228 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.371, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RVUayvA3mkF2 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yi0-f44.google.com (mail-yi0-f44.google.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C756811E80AD for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yic13 with SMTP id 13so11640yic.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BjtGwbTm0yoNcvwHAlka/KytXTawG/bo0s+icbY845I=; b=J70HgHsjXAmMjgnlYw14NqKJWPNpofn3AHcIYlslE64nQd3O7I52MSF9eUrcq4yy8g r3GP98Qi0ojKkT+UTJsIGZbooG46uL272JaodtyH6o9GHnBL3eFmv8taA2eL4mrgrx3j gCy2Zm6Pq/kv/7gTL/vqMrT8lo0HVfmHdGaqU=
Received: by with SMTP id n17mr7188289anl.88.1317250794130; Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (cpe-76-184-249-163.tx.res.rr.com. []) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g38sm916917ann.4.2011. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 28 Sep 2011 15:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:59:48 -0500
From: Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CAA91114.1E070%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: HIP option for draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview and which ICE?
Thread-Index: Acx+MlI7mTF7EVbX3UG+5tBpvCdd5A==
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu, lars.eggert@nokia.com, quittek@nw.neclab.eu
Subject: [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: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 22:57:05 -0000

> 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

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.

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.

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