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

Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> Thu, 03 October 2013 15:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ibc@aliax.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D85CD21F8426 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 08:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.676
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.676 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ASBH-cUwtUJ0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 08:20:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f173.google.com (mail-qc0-f173.google.com [209.85.216.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B52521F88BA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 08:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c3so1722460qcv.4 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 08:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=c8Ruh/TmWVd9ALy8Xz7UPYSpRlNRzexMNNDHl3IJncU=; b=iI0IW98OCnd1HfTSJk0K86cEQMZTZPpeeOOmhaqzPX+N4DgfytFKoksaNb/TKIcqhY FpfV+ZY7mcxOUTZmllLcpswgrEjbXhlD8RVK9kICTf0S+PQQTTrqMXSCmBHgGbtJQmjm CLi3BJilv4EgT1WPmm+5zKxCoBtoOuscmZZfxyT81hu/6LpcSACZV2kbzvvFi5sr02vV booSq2Qe0PdIiS/wpItnNrfRpsYJn4DhxRYt+kzysktllKRtf3N8EyWO0upo8altngfK eBFEAsORjvESfRVrDY9kP2eMtkxFH9oFb4WalOqkqgJPRsJ/yuDD+VjE3f3nMupM3eeE ohPw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmD1OB4+PmXKEKUjsPjAlH6hXlkKx5oktU/tMsHAV0p/v4r5SLlwTlZYXV1fgVO3p2fxiLP
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.69.132 with SMTP id z4mr11019457qai.78.1380813213130; Thu, 03 Oct 2013 08:13:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.16.71 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 08:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.49.16.71 with HTTP; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 08:13:32 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <54B5DF36-6BEE-4FA4-ACA1-D4912F9A49AB@nostrum.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>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:13:32 +0200
Message-ID: <CALiegfmaJ_NnySWdCvzzRBXLN7FutBv7fkjbfQknFkmw4LbD3g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net>
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c2310e11f40e04e7d7a13c"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04
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: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 15:20:45 -0000

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
El 03/10/2013 16:53, "Adam Roach" <adam@nostrum.com> escribió:
>
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:31, Iñaki Baz Castillo <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.

Some vendor will implement ICE-lite in its PBX and then many users will put
in into a LAN with port 5060 redirection in the router. And things won't
work.
The problem you describe will be present anyhow.

Regards.