There was an attempt in the previous revision to make ICE and No-ICE interoperate. I think this was a mistake and we should go with what I think the consensus was when we adopted no-ice, which was to either have all nodes on an overlay using ICE or all nodes not using ICE.
Bruce On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Cullen Jennings <[email protected]> wrote: > > Good point and bringing this up in the slides for the meeting. Will get more > out to the list soon. > > > On May 17, 2010, at 12:14 , Michael Chen wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> In the current base-08 draft, section 5.5.1.1 has the following >> definition: >> >> overlay_link >> corresponds to the OverlayLink production, Overlay Link protocols >> used with No ICE MUST specify "no ICE" in their description. >> >> What is "description"? My suggestion is that this sentence need NOT to >> single out no ICE. However, if one insists, this will be a good >> revision: >> >> overlay_link >> corresponds to the OverlayLink production, Overlay Link protocols >> used with No ICE MUST specify DLTS-UDP-SR-NO-ICE(3) or >> TLS-TCP-FH-NO-ICE(4). >> >> I have a related problem. The last sentence of the "overlay_link" >> definition says: >> >> overlay_link >> ... >> A single AttachReqAns MUST NOT include both candidates whose >> OverlayLink protocols use ICE (the default) and candidates that >> specify "no ICE". >> >> Section 5.5.1.11 says, >> >> No-ICE is selected when either side has provided "no ICE" Overlay >> Link candidates. >> >> Peers that support ICE can also easily support No-ICE, but the above two >> requirements have these implications: >> >> 1. In most cases, when peer A wants to Attach to peer X, peer A MUST >> decide whether to send an ICE or No-ICE while knowing nothing about X >> beyond its NodeId. It seems to me A has no choice but to send ICE >> attach. >> >> 2. When connecting to a bootstrap node or any nodes with known public >> IP, there is no need to send the Attach message. Just do D/TLS directly >> to the nodes' IP and port number. >> >> Then what is the use case for a No-ICE Attach? >> >> Thanks >> >> --Michael >> >> _______________________________________________ >> P2PSIP mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > > > Cullen Jennings > For corporate legal information go to: > http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html > > > _______________________________________________ > P2PSIP mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip > _______________________________________________ P2PSIP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/p2psip
