Re: Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?

Christer Holmberg <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.ietf.mmusic
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi,

Note that the mechanism is also used at least by CLUE, which does not mandate ICE (or JSEP).

Regards,

Christer

From: mmusic [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Eric Rescorla
Sent: 16 February 2017 17:44
To: mmusic WG <[email protected]>; Ben Campbell <[email protected]>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Do we really need TCP/DTLS/SCTP proto field?

I raised this with the authors, but maybe it is worth asking the mailing list.

It seems like we are trending towards a world where we just ignore the transport
component of the proto field and let ICE work things out. In that vein, I wonder
do we really need to register/define TCP/DTLS/SCTP. It's only really useful if
we think people will do SCTP over DTLS with TCP without ICE. Is that actually
likely. I note that per previous discussions, JSEP already requires that you use
UDP/DTLS/SCTP all the time: http://rtcweb-wg.github.io/jsep/#rfc.section.5.1.2

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.