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

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Thu, 29 September 2011 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 6461221F8ECA for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:39:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -109.766
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-109.766 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.833, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 o6y997K53Lpf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (eikenes.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 563C621F8E0A for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:39:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF19F39E08A; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:42:13 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NMvRu0bJ6hP3; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:42:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.0.14] (c213-89-141-213.bredband.comhem.se [213.89.141.213]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 781C039E088; Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:42:12 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <4E84E634.4050100@alvestrand.no>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:42:12 +0200
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Thunderbird/3.1.13
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Henry Sinnreich <henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
References: <CAAA4416.1E0DC%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAA4416.1E0DC%henry.sinnreich@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
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 21:39:23 -0000

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...
>>
>>
>
>