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

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

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"<[e-mail]>  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...
>>
>>
>
>