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

[Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen at cisco.com>]

inline:

Philip Matthews wrote:
> 
> 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. 

We DID do that from the start. Early versions of ICE were defined as a 
meta-protocol. But it was so hard to understand we punted it.


> 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.

I'll respond to this directly from your first note..

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

Right.

> 
> 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.

Correct. NICE is not meant for SIP, its meant for non-SIP. And thats a 
worry - if we end up making NICE simpler and then people use it with SIP 
instead of ICE, that would be bad. Though I believe it would interop.

-Jonathan R.


-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   499 Thornall St.
Cisco Fellow                                   Edison, NJ 08837
Cisco, Voice Technology Group
jdrosen at cisco.com
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (408) 902-3084
http://www.cisco.com
_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic