Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion

"Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net> Tue, 04 October 2011 15:29 UTC

Return-Path: <oej@edvina.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 8AE5A21F8CC5 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.148
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.148 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.053, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_BELOW2=2.154, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35]
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 sa+q6s0yNN1E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:29:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp7.webway.se (smtp7.webway.se [212.3.14.205]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80FAA21F8BB8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 08:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.40.24] (ns.webway.se [87.96.134.125]) by smtp7.webway.se (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 97FC1754BCD5; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:32:16 +0000 (UTC)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
From: "Olle E. Johansson" <oej@edvina.net>
In-Reply-To: <4E8B192E.80809@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 17:32:17 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5A391DD5-FEA8-4E3D-A7AA-26D33C07C17C@edvina.net>
References: <4E8B192E.80809@ericsson.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3)
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Summary of ICE discussion
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: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 15:29:28 -0000

4 okt 2011 kl. 16:33 skrev Magnus Westerlund:

> WG,
> 
> I have bellow tired to summarize the result of the ICE discussion. This
> is intended as furthering this discussion and form a basis for going
> forward in the consensus process. I do expect people that disagree with
> my summary of the discussion to speak up.
> 
> Major requirements
> 
> - Need for data transmission consent for protocols using UDP as the
> traffic receiver needs to consent to receiving the data
> 
> - Perform NAT and FW traversal when ever needed
> 
> - Support IPv4 to IPv6 transition
> 
> Desired behavior:
> 
> - Be interoperable with deployed legacy systems as SIP Trunk, PSTN
> gateways, VoIP phones.
> 
> WG chairs conclusion of discussion so far:
> 
> - ICE is so far the only solution that provides the security goals and
> have any legacy deployment.
> 
> - ICE usage will require that STUN connectivity MUST have succeeded
> prior to any data transmission to fulfill security goals.
> 
>  * The Browser will enforce this requirement to prevent being an attack
> vector in all cases.
> 
> - If anyone can find a solution that fulfill the security goals and have
> improved legacy interoperability people would be interested in that
> solution. So far RTCP has been discarded as insufficient.
> 
> - Media Gateway can support a reduced functionality set from Full ICE
> 
I think Harald brought up that ICE can assist in IP mobility in a handover situation. I don't know if this is required/desired or ignored behaviour at this point.

/O