Return-Path: 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 847DB21E811B for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:08:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.176 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.176 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.578, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] 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 tdR58JGAjVRy for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 10:08:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sesbmg20.ericsson.net (sesbmg20.ericsson.net [193.180.251.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B6321F8934 for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 09:48:59 -0700 (PDT) X-AuditID: c1b4fb38-b7fcf8e0000062b8-3b-524d9ffaea69 Received: from ESESSHC018.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.125]) by sesbmg20.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 57.90.25272.AFF9D425; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:48:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.146]) by ESESSHC018.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.72]) with mapi id 14.02.0328.009; Thu, 3 Oct 2013 18:48:58 +0200 From: Christer Holmberg To: Matthew Kaufman , "rtcweb@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 Thread-Index: Ac698bCDm/FvoM3PQXG8Sb8kVVaquv//37SAgAB0oAD/+7OiAIAIfEKAgAABegCAAAYXAIAAEvsAgAAINACAACYZFP///4TN Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2013 16:48:56 +0000 Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B3C06@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> References: <56C2F665D49E0341B9DF5938005ACDF811144C@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B37B8@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <2F515906-BEC6-4ACA-BF2B-172E6ADBDAF1@phonefromhere.com> <54B5DF36-6BEE-4FA4-ACA1-D4912F9A49AB@nostrum.com>, <524D94E0.7020801@matthew.at>, <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B3AEC@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B3AEC@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.17] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B3C06ESESSMB209erics_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrMLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvre6v+b5BBs9bZCzaZh9hsVj7r53d gcljyZKfTB6nOr0CmKK4bFJSczLLUov07RK4Mm4sO8pc8N2g4kjbf7YGxm7NLkZODgkBE4n5 +26wQthiEhfurWfrYuTiEBI4yiixbONzVghnMaPEkeO7gBwODjYBC4nuf9ogpoiAr8SP5eog vcICehJ/X/1hB7FFBPQl1m08yAZh50ksOLcHzGYRUJGY8qkVbBcvUGvzhn1MEON3ski8erOC ESTBKeAnse7SHCYQmxHooO+n1oDZzALiEreezGeCOFRAYsme88wQtqjEy8f/wE6TEFCUWN4v B1GeL3Fo1UFGiF2CEidnPmGZwCgyC8mkWUjKZiEpg4jrSdyYOoUNwtaWWLbwNTOErSsx498h qBpriQnnbzMiq1nAyLGKkaM4tTgpN93IYBMjMKIObvltsYPx8l+bQ4zSHCxK4rwf3zoHCQmk J5akZqemFqQWxReV5qQWH2Jk4uCUamA8LnPpvmb6tWcrpix2YNy6em+SaN6LnGzFgB+Te2Lr IzmFlx7beyqDRWdVWZnd8kf/93OtPfyrueRo59Z75TfCMm4LWcncn/7XXPxwbcrHpNcXz57x 23j72nnbGU4ypSr/Jcs/ZEzRy3HR4t33fhGfFefTEyGsxjx1WZp8NyXnsNftnlVn38mlxFKc kWioxVxUnAgAJrmGdXYCAAA= Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No a=ice-lite in JSEP-04 X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 17:08:30 -0000 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B3C06ESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 S= TUN requests. Regards, Christer ________________________________ From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Christ= er Holmberg [christer.holmberg@ericsson.com] Sent: Thursday, 03 October 2013 7:30 PM To: Matthew Kaufman; rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No a=3Dice-lite in JSEP-04 Hi, Do we really need to say more than the ICE RFC already says? I think it exp= lains when ICE-lite is appropriate, and when it isn't. Regards, Christer ________________________________ From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Matthe= w Kaufman [matthew@matthew.at] Sent: Thursday, 03 October 2013 7:01 PM To: rtcweb@ietf.org Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No a=3Dice-lite in JSEP-04 On 10/3/2013 7:53 AM, Adam Roach wrote: > On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:31, I=F1aki Baz Castillo 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 diffe= rence. > > The fact that implementors apparently don't see this as an obvious fact t= ells me that we need pretty strong language around this prohibition, and "b= rowser" 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 --_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B3C06ESESSMB209erics_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

 

Regards,

 

Christer

 

From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [rtcweb-bou= nces@ietf.org] on behalf of Christer Holmberg [christer.holmberg@ericsson.c= om]
Sent: Thursday, 03 October 2013 7:30 PM
To: Matthew Kaufman; rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No a=3Dice-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: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] on behal= f of Matthew Kaufman [matthew@matthew.at]
Sent: Thursday, 03 October 2013 7:01 PM
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] No a=3Dice-lite in JSEP-04

On 10/3/2013 7:53 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
> On Oct 3, 2013, at 9:31, I=F1aki Baz Castillo <ibc@aliax.net> wr= ote:
>
>> If I implement my own WebRTC stack in a smartphone app, am I disal= lowed to do ICE-lite in my side??
> I would hope so, yes. The chance that your smartphone app would have a= ny hope if working if it did ice lite are as close to zero as to make no di= fference.
>
> The fact that implementors apparently don't see this as an obvious fac= t 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
--_000_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4B3C06ESESSMB209erics_--