Re: [rtcweb] ICE-Lite, Was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-02.txt

On 04/12/2014 11:57 AM, Karl Stahl wrote:
>
> To avoid confusion…
>
> Gateways are not mentionedin draft-ietf-rtcweb-transports-03
>
> Under 3.5. Middle box related functions
>
> It too simply says:
>
> ICE [RFC5245] MUST be supported. The implementation MUST be a full
>
>    ICE implementation, not ICE-Lite.
>
> It needs to be said that gateways, i.e. devices having a media port on 
> a public IP address – never behind a NAT/firewall – SHOULD implement 
> ICE-Lite. (which browsers implementing full ICE correctly are 
> compatible with – and has to be – which we all have the same 
> understanding of, I believe)
>

I think we've been over this ground before.

At the moment, the RTCWEB protocol suite documentation deals with 
requirements for browsers, not requirements for gateways.

If someone wishes to start a requirements-for-gateways documents, I 
think they should be free to do that - but I hope we can finish this 
document set before that.

> /Karl
>
> *Från:*rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] *För *Christer Holmberg
> *Skickat:* den 12 april 2014 10:26
> *Till:* Harald Alvestrand; Martin Thomson; Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
> *Kopia:* rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Ämne:* Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-02.txt
>
> Hi,
>
> It’s not about running a browser on ice-lite – it is about a browser 
> being prepared to run with a remote endpoint that is running ice-lite 
> (e.g. a gateway). Certain browser implementations have had some 
> problems with that, afaik…
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> *From:*Harald Alvestrand [mailto:harald@alvestrand.no]
> *Sent:* 12 April 2014 08:59
> *To:* Christer Holmberg; Martin Thomson; Ram Mohan R (rmohanr)
> *Cc:* rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] I-D Action: 
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-stun-consent-freshness-02.txt
>
> Seems we have another reason why running a browser on ice-lite is a 
> bad idea. Good that we do not allow that.
>
> On 11. april 2014 22:37:55 CEST, Christer Holmberg 
> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com 
> <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>               With ICE-lite mode since the ICE-lite endpoint does not typically
>               generate any binding requests, it may not generate STUN consent as well.
>
>
>         Wat?
>
>         Consent is generated by responding to connectivity checks.  An ICE-lite endpoint has to do that.
>
>
>     Sure, but I guess what is meant is that the ICE-lite endpoint does not generate STUN consent REQUESTS.
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Christer
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org  <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
> -- 
> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>