Subject: [MMUSIC] Remove discriminatory QoS from ICE

From: "Henry Sinnreich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 07:35:48 -0800

The ICE version 12 seems to get ready for LC and will mark a critical
milestone for real time communications through NAT.
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-12.txt 

Just Remove Appendix B.3. Or have this issue reviewed by the IAB before
LC. 

Here is the issue with bad use of QoS in ICE:

Section 19.  IAB Considerations

Add some wording to reflect the IAB "Reflections on Internet
Transparency"
ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/internet-drafts/draft-iab-net-transpar
ent-00.txt. These considerations are especially pertinent:

   "For example, if a provider used QoS mechanisms to discriminate
   against any traffic that did not match the signature of a certain set
   of services or addresses, this would have an effect similar to a
   highly restrictive firewall.   

   Since arbitrary or severe bandwidth limitations can make an
   application unusable,  the introduction of application-specific
   bandwidth limitations is equivalent to application filtering from a
   user's standpoint."
(I hope the quote is well within the context here)

The negative effect of QoS on end users' choice of application services
is in conflict with Apendix B.3. Purpose of the Translation:

   "proxies will, in addition to
   performing normal SIP operations, inspect the SDP in SIP messages,
   and extract the IP address and port for media traffic.  They can then
   interact, through policy servers, with access routers in the network,
   to establish guaranteed QoS for the media flows."

Appendix B.3. is thus advertising a truly divisive (I would say
anti-competitive and thus evil) use of ICE, since it bundles Internet
access with SIP or other VoIP services from the same provider - a
constraint that is clearly against the principle of user choice and
against the principle of Internet transparency as mentioned in the above
IAB document.

In plain English, QoS means here "Quality of Suppression" of competing
SIP or other VoIP services.

Conclusion: 
Remove Appendix B.3. Or have this issue reviewed by the IAB before LC.

Congratulations Jonathan for the great job done!

Thanks, 

Henry Sinnreich

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

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:35:30 -0500

Henry,

Certainly I do understand where you are coming from. That appendix is 
not meant to endorse or codemn the practices it describes. It merely 
recognizes that they exist, and makes it clear that ICE can work in such 
environments (namely IMS). If ICE was designed to purposefully not work 
in environments like IMS, all it means is that they would continue to 
use the QoS mechanisms that IMS provides, but also use your other 
favorite technology, Session Border Controllers, when ICE would have 
otherwise allowed them to not have to.

-Jonathan R.

-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com