Ietf 81 mmusic wg draft elwell mmusic ice updated offer
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 3

IETF 81 MMUSIC WG draft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updated-offer PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 58 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

IETF 81 MMUSIC WG draft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updated-offer. Thomas Stach John Elwell Andy Hutton. Background. Discussion during last year on barriers to implementing ICE Alternative proposals for IPv4/IPv6 negotiation https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-mmusic-altc/

Download Presentation

IETF 81 MMUSIC WG draft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updated-offer

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Ietf 81 mmusic wg draft elwell mmusic ice updated offer

IETF 81 MMUSIC WGdraft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updated-offer

Thomas StachJohn ElwellAndy Hutton


Background

Background

  • Discussion during last year on barriers to implementing ICE

  • Alternative proposals for IPv4/IPv6 negotiation

    • https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-boucadair-mmusic-altc/

    • https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hutton-mmusic-icemicrolite/

  • Bar BoF at IETF#78

  • Draft discusses a couple of issues not raised at the time

  • Purpose: to get feedback on whether these issues need to be addressed and how

  • Discussed at IETF#80

  • -01 contains updates reflecting that discussion


Next steps

Next steps

  • The present draft concludes:“According to discussions in Section 4, it seems to be the case that the updated offer is needed, in practice, in very few environments, and therefore consideration should be given to relaxing the requirement in [RFC5245].”

  • Should we do this?

  • If so, are there any other updates to RFC 5245 in the pipeline, which this could be combined with?


  • Login