Henry Sinnreich wrote: > The work on ICE is truly impressive and so are the numerous I-Ds > associated with ICE. > > However, before sending the <ice-17> I-D for LC to the IESG, it would be > prudent and responsible to the industry (that spends considerable > resources on ICE in good faith) implementing ICE, to either (1) make it > an informational RFC
I see no reason for this work not to be standards track. > or (2) publish some deployment data showing such > items as: > > * NAT scenarios that have been tested, > * The % of success, > * Performance, such as call setup delay using SIP. It is my understanding that Google Talk uses something very similar to ICE, which at some point they will migrate to the XMPP profile of ICE defined in XEP-0176 <http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0176.html>. They are not typically forthcoming with detailed performance data, but the service appears to be fairly robust and on various public discussion lists Google Talk team members have indicated that they successfully establish media exchange about 92+% of the time without a media relay. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Sip mailing list https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sip This list is for NEW development of the core SIP Protocol Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for questions on current sip Use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for new developments on the application of sip
