Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ???

<snip> > The server doesn't have to claim WebRTC conformance, it just has to
> claim to interoperate with WebRTC endpoints. </snip>

The above assumption leads to lot of confusion in WebRTC Server implementation which starts from RTCWeb requirement itself. IMO, it is better to provide the minimum IETF standard guidelines for WebRTC servers like ice-lite/ICE, BUNDLE required or not, ICE-TCP/TURN. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Harald
> Alvestrand
> Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 7:29 AM
> To: rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ???
> 
> On 02/07/2014 02:56 AM, Wilson Chen (weichen2) wrote:
> > In case of negotiating with server (may be a gateway), IMHO, the
> server would like not to do connectivity check, it is simpler and
> faster to work in ice-lite and passive mode.
> 
> The server doesn't have to claim WebRTC conformance, it just has to
> claim to interoperate with WebRTC endpoints.
> 
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Wilson Chen
> >
> > From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin
> Uberti
> > Sent: 2014年2月7日 3:56
> > To: Rachel Dvori; rtcweb@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ???
> >
> > +rtcweb
> >
> > WebRTC endpoints must implement full ICE. Legacy (non-WebRTC)
> endpoints can use ICE Lite, but as mentioned in RFC5245, S 2.7, full
> ICE is preferred.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Rachel Dvori
> <rachel.dvori@gmail.com> wrote:
> > draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep@tools.ietf.org
> >
> >
> > Dear Person,
> >
> > I have seen the below in the draft of:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-05
> >
> > Attributes other than the ones specified above MAY be included,
> > except for the following attributes which are specifically
> > incompatible with the requirements of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage],
> > and MUST NOT be included:
> >
> > o  "a=crypto"
> > o  "a=key-mgmt"
> > o  "a=ice-lite"
> >
> >
> > But in draft of :  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-
> usage-11
> > There is no phrase that prevents a WebRTC user to be ice-lite
> >
> >
> > Can you pls clarify:
> > -          Where is it mentioned that ice-lite cannot be one of the
> participants of WebRTC
> > -          What is the reason that no side can be ice-lite  (as if
> one side is full-ice, there is still STUN and connectivity checks etc.
> >
> > Thanks
> > RD
> >
> > p.s. - what is the correct email address for this type of questions ?
> (Thanks and sorry)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rtcweb mailing list
> > rtcweb@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
> 
> 
> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb