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

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

What I think we DO need to say (eventhough someone may think it's obvious) , in the continous consent spec, is that ICE-lite entities do not send cc STUN requests.



Regards,



Christer



________________________________
From: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] on behalf of Christer Holmberg [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, 03 October 2013 7:30 PM
To: Matthew Kaufman; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04


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: [e-mail] [[e-mail]] on behalf of Matthew Kaufman [[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, 03 October 2013 7:01 PM
To: [e-mail]
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 <[e-mail]> 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
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb