Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip

[Philip Matthews <philip_matthews at magma.ca>]

On Fri, 7-Mar-08, at 07:36 , Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:

> Le Friday 07 March 2008 14:04:45 ext Philip Matthews, vous avez  
> écrit :
>> Below are some comments on this draft. I have grouped the comments by
>> subject matter.
>>
>> Comments on the subset of ICE chosen:
>> * I think this draft should allow multiple streams between the two
>> clients. I feel this is useful in non-SIP contexts. For example, my
>> draft draft-matthews-p2psip-id-loc requires multiple streams for non-
>> SIP purposes. I suggest this draft simply point out the
>> simplifications that occur if there is only one stream.
>
> IMHO, if you need multiple streams, you better use plain ICE. If  
> NICE gets
> support for multiple streams and/or components, it will become so  
> much like
> ICE, that I don't think there will be significant added value... ?
>
> On the other hand, multiple streams multiply the chance of  
> traversal failures
> and the setup latency. I would especially expect that an overlay  
> network
> would mux/tunnel over a single network flow between any couple of  
> peers.

In my view, what the NICE document does is separate out the SIP- 
specific parts of ICE from the rest of ICE, something that we should  
have done from the start. All the other stuff that Jonathan mentions  
in the NICE document is SIP-specific, but I don't see multiple  
streams as being SIP-specific. For example, the ID-LOC application is  
not SIP-specific.

If you read what NICE says about multiple streams, it just says "do  
ICE with just one component".

One other thing. I don't actually expect people to do NICE  
implementations that are distinct from ICE implementations. All the  
document really does is give people guidance on how to use ICE for  
non-SIP applications.

- Philip

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic