IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Tue, 25 March 2014 17:37 UTC

Return-Path: <emcho@sip-communicator.org>
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 BD8921A01E9 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.951
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.951 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 Q5xuQWdK07KE for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-f49.google.com (mail-bk0-f49.google.com [209.85.214.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64ADF1A0158 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:37:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-bk0-f49.google.com with SMTP id my13so305059bkb.22 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q5y/TdtBhFNQqKFTQClOK6RUy0acnOm8I93ff0nqk0U=; b=Tdc721mZz6Gbj/FshYc/5xIfNnLcAa5TuPlI74HSaD6m6xtkE5y0oF8hZ6vW1/P/b/ rajmvjSQXYy1GXI24ZXZBKrYfyBveF9hw9PFAMbKkX2J/AvM/wyn8nckW9gCvbgFzP2Z iCHWB6U2MdoB8RCguicGM8uy7hPKCH5npjtrh4Y8bUprL1XA1VwGuhjkAEDOEA6SU7IO O6JY7xhUNcL5W9y0zmkpiMvJje6wXIrDNVeWAiYp9qecL60DmHsfpiFp/20jXalRDPph OMrlnX/PDrW4iruQOwzB6ECJZFQNSfmI4auvKtbtQ9n8ch77OHl322jNkmoptypzplrr TNeA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk39JuqvZzGnCbUrMvRB6XAJaysyPUqVQZq13qtgv28lManwdFU1YM+NOm0WOTP7SwsfPMY
X-Received: by 10.204.168.206 with SMTP id v14mr5878308bky.26.1395769044481; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:37:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.u-strasbg.fr (mininet.u-strasbg.fr. [130.79.91.162]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ci7sm19811279bkc.0.2014.03.25.10.37.22 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5331BED1.3070202@jitsi.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:37:21 +0100
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>, Saúl Ibarr a Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com>
References: <26E25338-948C-43FA-A0AE-880BD1CB49B0@vidyo.com> <532A645A.3080605@stpeter.im> <F3A5A36B-978D-4B50-8E24-A4D4AA77D370@ag-projects.com> <E95AAC63-26BF-48A9-A2D5-BEBB88B92567@vidyo.com>
In-Reply-To: <E95AAC63-26BF-48A9-A2D5-BEBB88B92567@vidyo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/fVs86oXby3onvMdB2JGDsy_pBnw
Cc: "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Subject: Re: [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: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:37:29 -0000

On 25.03.14, 15:15, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Theoretically that makes sense.
>>
>> Agreed. Maybe a gateway could do ICE on behalf of the non-ICE capable endpoint, so can we say this is implementation specific and thus add a MAY to it?
>
> Right, of course.  I was talking about how you’d want to handle a signaling-only gateway.

There's also "XEP-0177: Jingle Raw UDP Transport Method" which is 
basically equivalent to ICE-less SIP.

That said, I don't mind mandating ICE at all.

Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email