[Jingle] ICE-TCP

Dirk Meyer dmeyer at tzi.de
Mon Nov 3 14:29:33 CST 2008

Olivier Crête wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 20:58 +0100, Dirk Meyer wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Dirk Meyer wrote:
>> > The ice-tcp draft is designed for RT(S)P and requires RFC 4571 for
>> > framing. IMHO this is a misstake we should not make. Our ICE-TCP should
>> > open an set-up a stream and once started, you can do whatever you want.
>> Now that I read the drafts and RFCs more closely I wonder if we want to
>> be compatible with ice-tcp or not. The stack for ice-tcp looks like
>> this:
> It is interesting to note that the latest TURN drafts do not use RFC4571
> for framing (they add an extra 16bit channel ID before the length).

But we may not need TURN. If one client is not behind a NAT or firewall
we can work without it. When we use TURN we SHOULD use it as it is
defined by the IETF because we want to re-use TURN server. But for
ICE-TCP this may be different.

> I guess for XMPP, we could specify soemthing like for RTP/RTCP, we
> should keep the SIP compatible framing (but maybe make it optional for
> other uses cases). Although, that makes it more painful to share the
> same ICE implementation between XMPP and SIP.

I agree that we should be compatible with SIP in case of RTP/RTCP but
IMHO it makes no sense for normal application data. Sometimes I wonder
if the MMUSIC WG thought of that use case.



More information about the Jingle mailing list