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

Agreed. This is not a HOWTO but a set of specs.

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
El 03/10/2013 18:46, "Christer Holmberg" <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 [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of
> Matthew Kaufman [matthew@matthew.at]
> *Sent:* Thursday, 03 October 2013 7:01 PM
> *To:* 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> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>