[Standards] Re: Jingle bootstrapping

Kai Vehmanen kai.vehmanen at nokia.com
Mon Mar 5 11:25:29 UTC 2007


Hello all,

On 03 March 2007,  Scott Ludwig wrote:
>Once the relay and stun services are available, the complex 
>piece is the ice transport implementation. While other 
>transports are possible (and encouraged), we do need a basic 
>ICE design that is agreed on. I don't think we need to track 
>ICE X standard, where X is always increasing in number. The 
>basic ICE algorithm hasn't changed much for awhile. We make a 

it's unfortunate that ICE is still not finalized in IETF (in development 
since ~2003), but it is getting _very_ close now. I definitely
agree with you that the basic algorithm has remained the same
for a long time now, and all that is left is finetuning the details.
So you should soon have a RFC number to reference to (though I won't 
promise to eat my hat in the remote case it's delayed again ;)).

>I don't think it is necessary for the xmpp community to "be 
>compatible with company X's ICE/STUN/TURN design" as a design 
>requirement. From my experience, if we can build momentum 
>around a standard, the companies are incented to build in 
>compatibility with that standard.

I understand the concerns over ICE schedule, but I'd hope XMPP/jingle
would still opt to use IETF-ICE as the basis. I also understand that
some extensions/adaptations might be needed (although I think 
the SIP/SDP specific parts of ICE are quite well isolated). Still for 
implementors, being able to build the media transport subsystem 
from fairly standard building blocks (RTP, ICE, codecs), is a big 
help. And as getting the ICE RFC out is now so close, it'd be great 
to have the XMPP community using it from start.

-- 
first.surname at nokia.com (Kai Vehmanen)




More information about the Standards mailing list