IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Stox] Stox-media: Should XEP-176 translations have Require: ice?

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Thu, 09 January 2014 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.com>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E791AE4D4 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:31:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.768
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.768 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=0.77, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1PRvQf4WfDRu for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:31:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from server209.appriver.com (server209c.appriver.com [8.31.233.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73B841AE3DC for <stox@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 09:31:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Note-AR-ScanTimeLocal: 1/9/2014 12:31:14 PM
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Primary: jonathan@vidyo.com
X-Note: This Email was scanned by AppRiver SecureTide
X-Virus-Scan: V-
X-Note-SnifferID: 0
X-Note: TCH-CT/SI:0-60/SG:2 1/9/2014 12:30:59 PM
X-GBUdb-Analysis: 0, 162.209.16.214, Ugly c=0.783275 p=-0.976 Source White
X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-2848-c
X-Note-419: 15.6003 ms. Fail:0 Chk:1345 of 1345 total
X-Note: SCH-CT/SI:0-1345/SG:1 1/9/2014 12:30:58 PM
X-Note: Spam Tests Failed:
X-Country-Path: ->UNKNOWN->LOCAL
X-Note-Sending-IP: 162.209.16.214
X-Note-Reverse-DNS:
X-Note-Return-Path: jonathan@vidyo.com
X-Note: User Rule Hits:
X-Note: Global Rule Hits: G327 G328 G329 G330 G334 G335 G445
X-Note: Encrypt Rule Hits:
X-Note: Mail Class: VALID
X-Note: Headers Injected
Received: from [162.209.16.214] (HELO mail.vidyo.com) by server209.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.2) with ESMTPS id 62174612 for stox@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 12:31:14 -0500
Received: from 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77]) by 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::250:56ff:fe85:4a71%11]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 11:31:13 -0600
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Stox-media: Should XEP-176 translations have Require: ice?
Thread-Index: AQHPDWCXO0GcUwCdhEOXXqfhFzsiYw==
Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:31:12 +0000
Message-ID: <26E25338-948C-43FA-A0AE-880BD1CB49B0@vidyo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [160.79.219.114]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <5263A5B77972C84F8E6E4BD89A40BB7B@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [Stox] Stox-media: Should XEP-176 translations have Require: ice?
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <stox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stox/>
List-Post: <mailto:stox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2014 17:31:25 -0000

I was thinking about the issue that unlike RFC 5245, XEP-176's definition of ICE doesn't support fallback to a non-ICE mode.

It occurred to me that SIP has a way of saying "do ICE, or fail the call": putting a "Require: ice" SIP option tag (from RFC 5768) in the SIP INVITE.

Should we recommend this?  It clearly has the right semantics, and will prevent interop failure when a non-ICE SIP endpoint answers a XEP-176 Jingle call.

My concern, though, is whether there are a) endpoints that implement RFC 5245 but not RFC 5768, or b) non-media-terminating B2BUAs that will pass ICE parameters through, but will reject calls with Require headers they don't know.  In either of these cases, adding this Require header would cause a call that would otherwise have worked to fail.

Any thoughts, especially from folks who know the state of deployed SIP better than I do?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email