Re: [rtcweb] HIP option for draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview and which ICE?

Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com> Thu, 29 September 2011 22:01 UTC

Return-Path: <henry.sinnreich@gmail.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 1688621F8EFE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:01:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.263
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.263 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.336, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 wuFWXPRrEbTI for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F4D421F8EFA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so1293057yxt.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=g8KJu/doAeZnwXaOqZEpnNfvRh2eMmwZthXOpVtxNAY=; b=q26NbMBa3dBv+bsWWiOudnBjJKGXEb1rEwJxZKoNqJSOx+SAMwqoEoikAcQptK7D+k 5quOqeZoFiquC5MNbvVOQ9A48eTxw9A8s/puSTlSGbh5VySBFzvBa2yQX+KFKgTnQFeY 3L+fxafDz7sZhFzw///zXdWeGQOPqZY6p/0NU=
Received: by 10.150.176.13 with SMTP id y13mr6046200ybe.67.1317333844285; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:04:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.15.2] (cpe-76-184-249-163.tx.res.rr.com. [76.184.249.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id q34sm668820ybl.17.2011.09.29.15.04.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:04:03 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.30.0.110427
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:04:00 -0500
From: Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <CAAA5580.1E0FD%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] HIP option for draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview and which ICE?
Thread-Index: Acx+87EV0D/LHJ7HrUOYyfpssctotA==
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Cc: quittek@nw.neclab.eu, stiemerling@nw.neclab.eu, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, lars.eggert@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] HIP option for draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview and which 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: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:01:13 -0000

> Having an 18-page ICE draft rather than the complete > 100 page ICE spec
> to read was refreshing. I don't think any new technology was described
> here; it's mostly explanation on how to think about ICE.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-01

Yes, the draft helps when thinking of one end supporting SIP and the other
end supporting some other signaling protocol, such as Jingle/XMPP.
This may be relevant in the scenario including two web sites supporting
different protocols or protocol implementations (hint, now more)  :-)
The high level solution seems also reasonable, as proposed in Figure 2:
"Ideal Multi Protocol ICE Architecture"

Unless I have missed something, this scenario has not been discussed as it
relates to ICE and seems critical for interoperability.
But hopefully it will be addressed in a separate I-D as you have mentioned.

Thanks, Henry


On 9/29/11 4:42 PM, "Harald Alvestrand" <harald@alvestrand.no> wrote:

> On 09/29/2011 10:49 PM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>>> I'm having a hard time finding this draft. do you have a pointer...
>> Sorry, my shortened link was not inaccurate. It is
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-01
>> 
>> I don't know if/how MMUSIC has pursued this topic.
>> Does anyone? Jonathan?
> Having an 18-page ICE draft rather than the complete > 100 page ICE spec
> to read was refreshing. I don't think any new technology was described
> here; it's mostly explanation on how to think about ICE.
> 
> My personal view is that the draft does not go far enough in the
> separation of concerns for maximum readability; there are two concerns
> when using ICE as part of a protocol suite:
> 
> - Whether ICE setup information can be exchanged between the endpoints.
> This is a matter dealt with in SIP and Jingle, but could equally well be
> done by writing to/reading from an Oracle database or exchanging slips
> of paper with IP addresses on them on a parkbench at midnight (just to
> be melodramatic).
> 
> - Whether ICE messages can be used safely, and reliably separated from
> payload messages on the media link. This is a matter that concerns RTP,
> SCTP, DTLS and so on.
> 
> Those two things are very separable concerns, and if the authors had
> desired, they could have been treated in completely separate documents.
> It might have made the packet easier to digest.
> 
>                 Harald
> 
> 
>> Henry
>> 
>> 
>> On 9/29/11 3:27 PM, "Cullen Jennings"<fluffy@cisco.com>  wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sep 28, 2011, at 4:59 PM, Henry Sinnreich wrote:
>>> 
>>>> The draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nosip from 2009 explains these issues,
>>>> including the fact that not all protocols can use ICE.
>>> I'm having a hard time finding this draft. do you have a pointer...
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>