[rtcweb] 答复: Where to specify ICE usage and the common transport

Do we really need this?
If we start a new specification about ICE, do we need integrate the final part of ICE specification with JSEP, this will need extra work to make them meet.

Yang
Huawei

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] 代表 Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
发送时间: 2012年7月6日 13:30
收件人: Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal); Magnus Westerlund; rtcweb@ietf.org
主题: Re: [rtcweb] Where to specify ICE usage and the common transport

> On 04/07/12 1:06 PM, "Muthu Arul Mozhi Perumal (mperumal)"
><mperumal@cisco.com> wrote:

>|- Is specifying this in its own specification the most suitable
>|approach
>
>Yes, IMO. I think it would ensue we get enough focus on this key
>component.
>
>|- Do we have any volunteers for writing such a specification?
>
>Please count me in. I think it makes sense to merge the consent freshness
>specification (draft-muthu-behave-consent-freshness) with the ICE usage
>for WebRTC.

Please count me also in. As one of the authors of consent draft even I
would also be interested in seeing a specification on ICE usage for webRTC.

Regards,
Ram

>
>Muthu
>
>|-----Original Message-----
>|From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
>Of Magnus Westerlund
>|Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 12:31 PM
>|To: rtcweb@ietf.org
>|Subject: [rtcweb] Where to specify ICE usage and the common transport
>|
>|WG,
>|
>|We chairs have identified that we currently we are missing specification
>|text for one of the key components of RTCWEB. This component is how
>|WebRTC uses ICE and defines the datagram transport that both the
>|DTLS/SCTP data channel uses and the RTP session.
>|
>|Such a specification would most likely contain the following:
>|
>|- How ICE is used in the WebRTC context
>|- Inclusion of STUN, TURN, TURN-TCP
>|- Inclusion of any defined "HTTP fallback"
>|- Description of the data transport in general and specifically how one
>|  can separate the traffic from the data channel and RTP session.
>|- Requirements on the signalling and API and what configuration data is
>|  needed.
>|
>|My personal view is that this is best served by having its own
>|specification. Alternatives that exist is to include it either in the
>|data channel or RTP usage specifications.
>|
>|Thus we chairs would appreciate feedback on at least two things:
>|
>|- Is specifying this in its own specification the most suitable approach
>|
>|- Do we have any volunteers for writing such a specification?
>|
>|Cheers
>|
>|Magnus Westerlund
>|
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Multimedia Technologies, Ericsson Research EAB/TVM
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Ericsson AB                | Phone  +46 10 7148287
>|Färögatan 6                | Mobile +46 73 0949079
>|SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden| mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
>|----------------------------------------------------------------------
>|
>|
>|_______________________________________________
>|rtcweb mailing list
>|rtcweb@ietf.org
>|https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>_______________________________________________
>rtcweb mailing list
>rtcweb@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>

_______________________________________________
rtcweb mailing list
rtcweb@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb