Subject: [rtcweb] HIP option for draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview and which ICE?

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 17:59:48 -0500

> Comments are always welcome

The short mention of the ICE Agent in draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview-01 may need
some more explanation if SIP oriented ICE is implied and if not, the flavors
of ICE for other protocols, such as Jingle which has different signaling, as
mentioned in the I-D, or/and need other extensions, such as for RTSP
(draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat).

The draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nosip from 2009 explains these issues,
including the fact that not all protocols can use ICE.

Since SIP may or may not be the signaling protocol, the implied meaning (or
is it?) should be explained along with the issues and options.

One option that comes to mind is using HIP with its own ICE solution
(RFC5207) but having the advantage of working with _all_ application
protocols, besides transition to IPv6, mobility and VPN-like security.
For maximum flexibility and applicability IMO in environments using HIP.

Some more text is desirable discussing the above.

I have taken the liberty to copy the authors of RFC 5207.

Thanks, Henry

On 9/28/11 7:09 AM, "Harald Alvestrand" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> I've just posted version -02 of the -overview document.
> I'll just paste the change log from the document here:
> 
>> A.6.  Changes from draft-ietf-rtcweb-overview -01 to -02
>> 
>>    Added pointers to use cases, security and rtp-usage drafts (now WG
>>    drafts).
>> 
>>    Changed description of SRTP from mandatory-to-use to mandatory-to-
>>    implement.
>> 
>>    Added the "3 principles of negotiation" to the connection management
>>    section.
>> 
>>    Added an explicit statement that ICE is required for both NAT and
>>    consent-to-receive.
> 
> Comments are always welcome, and version numbers are cheap!
> 
> A note on making the finding of such easy:
> When I prepare a new version of a draft, I'll go back to the mailing
> list and search for subjects containing the draft name, or some subset
> of that ("overview" in this case), and dated between the previous
> version and this version.
> 
> Starting the subject line with "ISSUE:" or "CHANGE:" is also good for
> catching my attention when I'm trying to re-locate those comments.
> 
> Suggestions for changes that occur deep within a thread on other topics
> have a high chance of getting lost in this process, unfortunately.
> 
> Enjoy the reading!
> 
>                        Harald
> 
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 09:24:38 +0200

> is it?) should be explained along with the issues and options.
That is good fodder for the NAT traversal draft. I think it is too 
detailed for the overview.
> For maximum flexibility and applicability IMO in environments using HIP.
Henry, nobody but you has argued for HIP.

> On 9/28/11 7:09 AM, "Harald Alvestrand"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:27:18 -0600

> including the fact that not all protocols can use ICE.

I'm having a hard time finding this draft. do you have a pointer...

---

From: "Olle E. Johansson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 22:32:16 +0200

> I'm having a hard time finding this draft. do you have a pointer...

Maybe mispeled - this one may fit the bill:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-01

Guesswork...
/O

---

From: Henry Sinnreich <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:49:42 -0500

> I'm having a hard time finding this draft. do you have a pointer...

Sorry, my shortened link was not inaccurate. It is
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-01

I don't know if/how MMUSIC has pursued this topic.
Does anyone? Jonathan?

Henry

---

From: Cullen Jennings <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:10:06 -0600

thanks

---

From: Iñaki Baz Castillo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:29:34 +0200

> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rosenberg-mmusic-ice-nonsip-01

Abstract
   Interative Connectivity Establishment (ICE) has been specified as a
  NAT traversal mechanism for protocols based on the offer/answer
exchange model.  In practice, only the Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) has used ICE.  This document provides guidance on how other
protocols can make use of ICE.

Well, "only the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) has used ICE"...
I would replace that with "ICE has been initially specified for SIP"
(the usage of ICE in SIP is just anecdotal, ICE is more used in
XMPP-Jingle than in SIP).

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

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2011 23:42:12 +0200

> I don't know if/how MMUSIC has pursued this topic.
Having an 18-page ICE draft rather than the complete > 100 page ICE spec 
to read was refreshing. I don't think any new technology was described 
here; it's mostly explanation on how to think about ICE.

My personal view is that the draft does not go far enough in the 
separation of concerns for maximum readability; there are two concerns 
when using ICE as part of a protocol suite:

- Whether ICE setup information can be exchanged between the endpoints. 
This is a matter dealt with in SIP and Jingle, but could equally well be 
done by writing to/reading from an Oracle database or exchanging slips 
of paper with IP addresses on them on a parkbench at midnight (just to 
be melodramatic).

- Whether ICE messages can be used safely, and reliably separated from 
payload messages on the media link. This is a matter that concerns RTP, 
SCTP, DTLS and so on.

Those two things are very separable concerns, and if the authors had 
desired, they could have been treated in completely separate documents. 
It might have made the packet easier to digest.

                Harald

> Henry
>
>
> On 9/29/11 3:27 PM, "Cullen Jennings"<[email-masked]>  wrote:
>