Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Mon, 27 August 2012 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
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 056A621F845D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:29:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.355
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id g6irI-zt7gk1 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from blu0-omc4-s37.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc4-s37.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.111.176]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 798EE21F845C for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:29:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU169-DS45 ([65.55.111.137]) by blu0-omc4-s37.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:29:10 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [24.16.96.166]
X-EIP: [J697KQD/QPXQwjrvm5+jLxmQXniFtL/p]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU169-DS457B54FA311A048E5E68B093A20@phx.gbl>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "'Emil Ivov'" <emcho@jitsi.org>
References: <CABcZeBMzgAs=hK38hCjS7t6yLjkTydS2TQUb8R3rBbRKGakVdQ@mail.gmail.com><CABkgnnVBBAH=HCkn_cksBs_9A_hm=VfFwcTtvOM3C7XB2h2KTA@mail.gmail.com><CABcZeBMFUFjU=FQo5LeJrcMfajeae0j+PWw5U2g5dUQNcJLWaA@mail.gmail.com><CABkgnnXiL3_U+Hci9ooDqBCsoV3KF8pwgcf9zbuN6EKZkK+aiQ@mail.gmail.com><CABcZeBNkkH93ybuMWoFg-ddKWnRgdn2Vgyb50W21A2GoMWxw6Q@mail.gmail.com><CABkgnnXQ25ZYNqeO+=FsYDR3aNvFS2zvrKWGs5o=h8m+Eq=Y+Q@mail.gmail.com><3B8DB12B-ABB3-4AC2-A0A0-93DC62C619D3@iii.ca><CABkgnnU3ecmhUwCYHmppwLJz-nbSA6=VRF7nF7wcpb+5QAWmdQ@mail.gmail.com>, <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD81069D82BF@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>, <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4840E4E7B56@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>, <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD81069D8500@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>, <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4840E4E7C02@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>, <503BDC75.7050008@stpeter.im> <BLU002-W2286956624CC6600038246993A20@phx.gbl> <503BEEFD.40301@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <503BEEFD.40301@jitsi.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 15:29:19 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQH4Z3X5I7zcrx421Sos9AL76IZ9BAJvCnahAdiFK1ACgKa3jAGz5sLXAsrOx68ChET32QJMFXN+AitKuM4CAxiVZgJ/+26+AdDCUrACfNC2awJzCOrgAdiruaeWHX4mcA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Aug 2012 22:29:10.0426 (UTC) FILETIME=[60EC7FA0:01CD84A3]
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"
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: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 22:29:12 -0000

Emil Ivov said: 

Well an ICE stack that implements trickle as per XEP-0176 would currently
not interoperate with a 5245 implementation or, at best, would lead to
unpredictable results.

The description in XEP-0176 is actually quite perfunctory and can't really
be considered a proper specification.

A document that describes a proper way of implementing this would hence be
quite helpful.

[BA]  You are correct that XMPP/Jingle signaling will not be understood by a
SIP UA.  However,   I don't see anything inherent in the use of STUN/TURN 
within XEP-0176 that violates RFC 5245.  If the issue is lack of clarity in
XEP-0176, shouldn't that be brought up in the XSF, which owns the
specification?