Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ???

On 02/07/2014 02:56 AM, Wilson Chen (weichen2) wrote:
> In case of negotiating with server (may be a gateway), IMHO, the server would like not to do connectivity check, it is simpler and faster to work in ice-lite and passive mode.

The server doesn't have to claim WebRTC conformance, it just has to
claim to interoperate with WebRTC endpoints.

>
> Thanks,
> Wilson Chen
>
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Uberti
> Sent: 2014年2月7日 3:56
> To: Rachel Dvori; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ice-lite in WebRTC ???
>
> +rtcweb
>
> WebRTC endpoints must implement full ICE. Legacy (non-WebRTC) endpoints can use ICE Lite, but as mentioned in RFC5245, S 2.7, full ICE is preferred.
>
> On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Rachel Dvori <rachel.dvori@gmail.com> wrote:
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep@tools.ietf.org
>  
>  
> Dear Person,
>  
> I have seen the below in the draft of:   http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-05
>  
> Attributes other than the ones specified above MAY be included,
> except for the following attributes which are specifically
> incompatible with the requirements of [I-D.ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage],
> and MUST NOT be included:
>  
> o  "a=crypto"
> o  "a=key-mgmt"
> o  "a=ice-lite"
>  
>  
> But in draft of :  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-rtp-usage-11  
> There is no phrase that prevents a WebRTC user to be ice-lite
>  
>  
> Can you pls clarify:
> -          Where is it mentioned that ice-lite cannot be one of the participants of WebRTC
> -          What is the reason that no side can be ice-lite  (as if one side is full-ice, there is still STUN and connectivity checks etc.
>  
> Thanks
> RD
>  
> p.s. - what is the correct email address for this type of questions ?  (Thanks and sorry)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

-- 
Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.