Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Thu, 03 October 2013 21:03 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnUaWgALttJUR6ynaga1SN8=rKmgKA25nMhL4kMnL7Q7vw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF811144C@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> <CALiegfn+u-LD=W1S2te6UB1+u6yd7xAbpKO_U=qUEsD-aWv6cw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2UHjitspwzJ_nzdDXwN_ZoVAk=86O98khhhoOdAtVhiA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B37B8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <2F515906-BEC6-4ACA-BF2B-172E6ADBDAF1@phonefromhere.com> <CALiegf=EmbKX7KPffa79eDn4zFxuZBkNFNsh-aX-iTecob7v6Q@mail.gmail.com> <54B5DF36-6BEE-4FA4-ACA1-D4912F9A49AB@nostrum.com> <524D94E0.7020801@matthew.at> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B3AEC@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B3C06@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <524DACC4.8060901@alvestrand.no> <CAOJ7v-1_HH3UScKoApow9xd8XBzckpDnCNBV1y=-CE6k+Qv1kA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B4051@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CABkgnnUaWgALttJUR6ynaga1SN8=rKmgKA25nMhL4kMnL7Q7vw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:49:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0uT-tJD_nmpixBRezeNOyKE9HJcxaQ1VNCTr=Uv=szUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="e89a8f6474ed05126604e7dc55a0"
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04
Precedence: list

Agree with Martin.

Also, the implications of DTLS (for example) are substantially larger than
requiring full ICE. Given that full ICE is already strongly recommended by
5245, is there any non-academic reason to not mandate it for WebRTC
implementations?

On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 3 October 2013 12:08, Christer Holmberg
> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> > For example, assume I would implement a gateway using node.js and WebRTP
> > API. The gateway platform isn't downloading the JavaScript code from a
> > webserver - it is "manually" installed, which means it can be reviewed
> > before it is executed.
>
> In that case, given that node.js has a UDP API, there isn't a security
> reason for preventing you from sending RTP.  You'd only need ICE-lite
> to be compatible.  That said, if you want to use the WebRTC API,
> wouldn't you want the same code (on both sides of the API)?
>
> But that's not really the WebRTC API as specified, because the
> specification has to assume the browser security model.
>

[rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich)
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Iñaki Baz Castillo
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Justin Uberti
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Christer Holmberg
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Eric Rescorla
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Tim Panton
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Iñaki Baz Castillo
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Adam Roach
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Iñaki Baz Castillo
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Matthew Kaufman
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Christer Holmberg
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Iñaki Baz Castillo
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Adam Roach
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Christer Holmberg
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Harald Alvestrand
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Justin Uberti
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Christer Holmberg
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Martin Thomson
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Justin Uberti
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Iñaki Baz Castillo
Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Cullen Jennings (fluffy)