Subject: [sipcore] Trickle ICE is a MUST for SIP

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:35:26 +0200

Hi,

IMHO we need Trickle ICE for SIP ASAP. Otherwise any custom protocol
designed by people with less RTC knowledge than SIP folks will be
better than SIP when ICE is in use (of course I mean WebRTC).

I actively try to argue that SIP is suitable for browsers and WebRTC,
but this is no longer true if Trickle ICE is not feasible with SIP.
Having a VPN or a virtual interface (VMware, VirtualBox, etc) in the
computer makes SIP a bad choice because the ICE triggering process
takes too long (timeout due to virtual interfaces).

Is there interest in draft-ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip [*] ? Really, I
don't think we can wait one year for a standard. There are lot of
people using SIP for WebRTC. Trickle ICE is a MUST.

Best regards.

[*] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-01

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 13:36:26 +0200

Hi,

Will join this topic in the MMUSIC WG where the draft is being proposed.

Regards.

-- 
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<[email-masked]>

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 11:47:11 -0400

Iñaki,

O/A was carefully partitioned so that the basic O/A mechanism is 
independent of sip, so RFC 3264 could be handled by mmusic, while the 
means of conveying O/A in sip is defined in 3261 that was handled by the 
sip wg.

We have similar turf issues for trickle ICE. The basic mechanism for 
trickle ICE is independent of SIP, but the mechanism for conveying it in 
sip is a different matter. So the conveyance of trickle ICE in sip via 
INFO or most likely should be handled in DISPATCH or SIPCORE, but it 
*may* be most appropriate to handle the actual message content 
describing the trickling in MMUSIC.

It is not necessary to process info packages in sipcore. In principle 
one could be done in mmusic, if people are comfortable with that.

I know this is all bureaucratic BS, but better to sort it out up front 
than later on. OTOH mmusic is very busy, so doing the work elsewhere 
might be quicker.

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 17:28:27 +0000

It is true that MMUSIC is very busy during the meetings, but between the meetings there is lots of space available on the mailing list...

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: sipcore [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: 15 May 2014 18:47
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Trickle ICE is a MUST for SIP

Iñaki,

O/A was carefully partitioned so that the basic O/A mechanism is independent of sip, so RFC 3264 could be handled by mmusic, while the means of conveying O/A in sip is defined in 3261 that was handled by the sip wg.

We have similar turf issues for trickle ICE. The basic mechanism for trickle ICE is independent of SIP, but the mechanism for conveying it in sip is a different matter. So the conveyance of trickle ICE in sip via INFO or most likely should be handled in DISPATCH or SIPCORE, but it
*may* be most appropriate to handle the actual message content describing the trickling in MMUSIC.

It is not necessary to process info packages in sipcore. In principle one could be done in mmusic, if people are comfortable with that.

I know this is all bureaucratic BS, but better to sort it out up front than later on. OTOH mmusic is very busy, so doing the work elsewhere might be quicker.

	Thanks,
	Paul

On 5/15/14 7:36 AM, Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>> Is there interest in draft-ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip [*] ? Really, 
>> I don't think we can wait one year for a standard. There are lot of 

_______________________________________________
sipcore mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sipcore

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 17:35:22 +0000

In addition, an Info Package doesn't even have to be specified in IETF.

Trickle ICE is obviously a special case, though, and not just some application data sent between two entities :)

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: sipcore [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: 15 May 2014 20:28
To: Paul Kyzivat; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Trickle ICE is a MUST for SIP

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: sipcore [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
Sent: 15 May 2014 18:47
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [sipcore] Trickle ICE is a MUST for SIP

Iñaki,

	Thanks,
	Paul

---

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:13:36 +0200

On 15 May 2014, at 17:47, Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]> wrote:

> We have similar turf issues for trickle ICE. The basic mechanism for trickle ICE is independent of SIP, but the mechanism for conveying it in sip is a different matter. So the conveyance of trickle ICE in sip via INFO or most likely should be handled in DISPATCH or SIPCORE, but it *may* be most appropriate to handle the actual message content describing the trickling in MMUSIC.
> 

I propose we get it dispatched to SIPCORE and handle it quickly.
Iñaki - please resend your message to dispatch and we'll handle it from there.

/O

---

From: "Parthasarathi R" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 04:34:41 +0530

Hi all,

I agree that Trickle ICE is a special case but it should not be designed in a way to break the existing O/A model. I have explained the usecases in MMUSIC WG wherein INFO creates race condition within O/A (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mmusic/current/msg13287.html). Irrespective of WG where this usecase is developed, this issue has to be resolved.

Thanks
Partha

> Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2014 11:05 PM
> To: Christer Holmberg; Paul Kyzivat; [email-masked]
> Trickle ICE is obviously a special case, though, and not just some
> application data sent between two entities :)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> It is true that MMUSIC is very busy during the meetings, but between
> the meetings there is lots of space available on the mailing list...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> means of conveying O/A in sip is defined in 3261 that was handled by
> the sip wg.
> 
> trickle ICE is independent of SIP, but the mechanism for conveying it
> in sip is a different matter. So the conveyance of trickle ICE in sip
> via INFO or most likely should be handled in DISPATCH or SIPCORE, but
> it