IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Tue, 25 March 2014 18:12 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 266A11A01B9 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:12:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.251
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.251 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, 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 RZ3jqH_AKrAw for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-f49.google.com (mail-wg0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A827C1A01F3 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:12:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id a1so569714wgh.8 for <stox@ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:12:13 -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=KzzeKzMat1Dh5w1Or8bPqdOdpt0h5YDXAXCT9i/4Y5I=; b=QkccgLWowmrplkMD5DfXSccuthmIsA5u3vHOJCLmnnKkFPE2SeYGOgdoFFJJKaYL62 adlnyenj7DUqSt98SkkW0cDvrEwatEh3RTRCKLuKOCHbhmyCrtCCCilYSkra9Veau3/l WErSwSKJSNrqlPnEoVZdfBbvbyZ+Clp5bzkRdbvmDZ24J4wywxz4BAfM2umxp+qKRUoE NPpzwiTwHIPQQnIsiKn1XifmNEiJrJoAUhHUkGHXgQHyHxR+6oBNgrZ1+5Lxa8s32m5s mALaJKdQ3x1oz/xI5VfTRDW8p8QvEPLY+D7vTmuxVZk8ExK8WfO+GbFDc72V70q6+aF6 avrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQl2tawwVlXBeJhC02udD4XHOWAVL0Z8OhuxeGMxQ2Nl0WLhXgmelvvP3LPs0U6qEL/d2ui2
X-Received: by 10.181.13.15 with SMTP id eu15mr24076533wid.38.1395771133713; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:12:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from camionet.u-strasbg.fr ([2001:660:4701:1001:b0dd:77cc:4e5e:d0b0]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id t6sm52569047wix.4.2014.03.25.11.12.11 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:12:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5331C6FA.4070201@jitsi.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 19:12:10 +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>
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> <CF55AE22-BC8C-41D2-ACDF-F36CB845A356@vidyo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CF55AE22-BC8C-41D2-ACDF-F36CB845A356@vidyo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/q-waqlCoDc8SAHDNh7FsVS1eBTo
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 18:12:21 -0000

On 25.03.14, 19:03, Jonathan Lennox wrote:
>
> 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.

Agreed!

-- 
https://jitsi.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email