This makes me think that it would be best for XEP-0176 to specify only the Jingle ice-udp transport, and to move the Jingle ice-tcp transport definition to a separate XEP.
Any objections? /psa -------- Original Message -------- Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:07:20 -0500 From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: IETF MMUSIC WG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [MMUSIC] ICE tcp diffs As folks may have noticed, and updated ICE-tcp is now available: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-tcp-05.txt the changes from -04 are: * fixed bugs in pseudocode SO_REUSEPORT -> SO_REUSEADDR for loop needs to go from 0 to MAX, not 1 to MAX * clarified that secure media is always DTLS-SRTP, even over a TCP connection. Forbid RTP over TLS. * added checks on sender side to make sure application data doesn't match a stun packet, and if it does, suggests to use a different number of bytes to make the data not look like a stun message based on the length checks * previously, if a clients tcp connection to a turn server failed during the middle of a session, the client would reconnect and perform a 'move'. Moves have been removed from turn so now the draft says to reconnect and restart ICE for the stream I did not add ice-lite to ICE-tcp; I started on it to see how it would look, but ran out of time before finishing. That is the main issue I want to discuss in Vancouver. The other thing to note is that ICE-tcp depends on TURN-tcp, which is a new draft that has been split off from the main TURN spec, and will move at a slower pace (and only once the core UDP TURN stuff is done). -Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 499 Thornall St. Cisco Fellow Edison, NJ 08837 Cisco, Voice Technology Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (408) 902-3084 http://www.cisco.com _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
