Subject: [MMUSIC] Re: Dedicated draft for RTP keepalive?

From: "Xavier Marjou" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:56:11 +0200

In order to fix ideas, I have posted the following draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-marjou-behave-app-rtp-keepalive-
00.txt

Xavier

-----Original Message-----
Object: Dedicated draft for RTP keepalive?

Looking at current applications, there are 2 fundamental behaviors that 
help RTP applications with regards to NAT traversal: "Symmetric RTP" and 
"Binding keepalives".

The first topic is shortly described in a short doc (draft-wing-behave- 
symmetric-rtprtcp-01).

The second topic is currently described in draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-09 
(section 7.12), which nicely describes two "binding keepalives" mechanisms: 
one for communications between ICE agents (STUN-keepalive case) and another 
for communications between non-ICE agents (RTP-keepalive fallback case). 
For the latter, I propose to extract it in a separate doc so that non-ICE 
applications can refer to a very short doc for basic "binding keepalives". 

What do you think?

Xavier

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

---

From: "Christer Holmberg \(JO/LMF\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 10:25:28 +0200

Hi,

A short question.

In chapter 4.3 you say:

"For media sessions negotiated with SDP, there is a need for the
endpoint to use ICE."

You can use STUN without using ICE, can't you?

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Xavier
Marjou
Sent: 4. elokuuta 2006 10:56
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ietf-behave] Dedicated draft for RTP keepalive?

In order to fix ideas, I have posted the following draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-marjou-behave-app-rtp-keepaliv
e-
00.txt

Xavier

-----Original Message-----

The second topic is currently described in draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-09
(section 7.12), which nicely describes two "binding keepalives"
mechanisms: 
one for communications between ICE agents (STUN-keepalive case) and
another for communications between non-ICE agents (RTP-keepalive
fallback case). 
For the latter, I propose to extract it in a separate doc so that
non-ICE applications can refer to a very short doc for basic "binding
keepalives". 

What do you think?

Xavier

_______________________________________________
Ietf-behave mailing list
[email-masked]
https://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-behave