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

I would assert that what we have is demonstrably insufficient, inasmuch 
as you, Iñaki, demonstrated just a few messages ago that you don't 
understand the present guidance. No one who does would ever even imagine 
putting ICE lite into a smartphone application.

Perhaps a reiteration in the RTCWEB documents would be appropriate.

/a

On 10/3/13 11:48, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>
> Agreed. This is not a HOWTO but a set of specs.
>
> --
> Iñaki Baz Castillo
> <ibc@aliax.net <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>>
>
> El 03/10/2013 18:46, "Christer Holmberg" 
> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com 
> <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> escribió:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     Do we really need to say more than the ICE RFC already says? I
>     think it explains when ICE-lite is appropriate, and when it isn't.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Christer
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>
>     [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] on
>     behalf of Matthew Kaufman [matthew@matthew.at
>     <mailto:matthew@matthew.at>]
>     *Sent:* Thursday, 03 October 2013 7:01 PM
>     *To:* rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04
>
>     On 10/3/2013 7:53 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
>     > On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:31, Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net
>     <mailto:ibc@aliax.net>> wrote:
>     >
>     >> If I implement my own WebRTC stack in a smartphone app, am I
>     disallowed to do ICE-lite in my side??
>     > I would hope so, yes. The chance that your smartphone app would
>     have any hope if working if it did ice lite are as close to zero
>     as to make no difference.
>     >
>     > The fact that implementors apparently don't see this as an
>     obvious fact tells me that we need pretty strong language around
>     this prohibition, and "browser" is clearly too narrow a scope.
>     >
>     >
>
>     The spec should say that:
>     1. The prohibition on sending media prior to completing a STUN
>     connectivity test is a MUST
>     2. A full ICE implementation is a SHOULD
>
>     If I'm building a system with clients at one end and gateways with
>     public addresses at the other, a full ICE implementation isn't
>     required
>     anywhere in order to make calls through those gateways. But
>     keeping the
>     browser from being able to spew media at something that hasn't
>     consented
>     *is* required.
>
>     Matthew Kaufman
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb