IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Tue, 25 March 2014 18:04 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 0FD941A01DF for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.131
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.131 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 bYABzc2rLjvw for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:04:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from server209.appriver.com (server209c.appriver.com [8.31.233.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D09A31A0157 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Note-AR-ScanTimeLocal: 3/25/2014 2:03:57 PM
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
X-Policy: GLOBAL - vidyo.com
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:0-78/SG:2 3/25/2014 2:03:38 PM
X-GBUdb-Analysis: 0, 162.209.16.213, Ugly c=0.89194 p=-0.979794 Source White
X-Signature-Violations: 0-0-0-4386-c
X-Note-419: 15.6005 ms. Fail:1 Chk:1342 of 1342 total
X-Note: SCH-CT/SI:1-1342/SG:1 3/25/2014 2:03:42 PM
X-Note: Spam Tests Failed:
X-Country-Path: ->UNITED STATES->LOCAL
X-Note-Sending-IP: 162.209.16.213
X-Note-Reverse-DNS: mail1.vidyo.com
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 [162.209.16.213] (HELO mail.vidyo.com) by server209.appriver.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0.8) with ESMTPS id 83042374; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 14:03:57 -0400
Received: from 492133-EXCH2.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:6b62]) by 492132-EXCH1.vidyo.com ([fe80::50:56ff:fe85:4f77%13]) with mapi id 14.03.0146.000; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:03:56 -0500
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
To: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
Thread-Topic: [Stox] Stox-media: Should XEP-176 translations have Require: ice?
Thread-Index: AQHPDWCXO0GcUwCdhEOXXqfhFzsiY5rqFr0AgAgyOQCAAFmKAIAAOFCAgAAHbIA=
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:03:55 +0000
Message-ID: <CF55AE22-BC8C-41D2-ACDF-F36CB845A356@vidyo.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> <5331BED1.3070202@jitsi.org>
In-Reply-To: <5331BED1.3070202@jitsi.org>
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="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <C486D1B641120F4D927F6B7850E1A954@vidyo.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/ma3tP_mM5ouapKBS5RX5U2qrAAU
Cc: "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com>, 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 18:04:05 -0000

On Mar 25, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:

> 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.

Right, but there’s no way for a Jingle client to offer a choice between XEP-176 and XEP-177, whereas RFC 5245 requires that both ICE and fallback non-ICE be supported.

RFC 5768 allows a signaling-only XMPP-to-SIP gateway to (mostly) express the XMPP semantic that ICE is required, with no fallback supported.  However, using it would mean failures if you hit a device that supports (or passes) RFC 5245 but not RFC 5768.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email