Subject: [MMUSIC] ICE-15: definition of ice-lite syntax

From: "Alfred E. Heggestad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:04:22 +0200

hi

ICE-15 defines a session level SDP attribute "ice-lite" which indicates
that the agent is a lite implementation, i.e. if this attritbute is omitted
it indicates a full implementation.

perhaps it is too late to suggest any changes to the ICE draft now, but what
about changing the syntax to e.g. "ice-mode" instead, which gives greater
flexibility for future extensions such as a "third" mode. My suggestion
would then be:

   a=ice-mode:full       Full ICE implementation
   a=ice-mode:lite       Lite ICE implementation
   a=ice-mode:foo        Future ICE mode (currently not invented..)

In case people are worried about huge SDP payloads, we could also specify
that the full mode is default, and if the ice-mode SDP attribute is not
present, this means Full ICE implementation.

/alfred

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

---

From: Ross Finlayson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 22:07:12 -0700

>   a=ice-mode:lite       Lite ICE implementation

Have we all forgotten that the English word is actually spelled "light"? :-)

	Ross.

---

From: lconroy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2007 11:59:38 +0100

Hi Ross, folks,
  No - however, is it appropriate?
Are you suggesting that the many-faceted ICE specifications are  
written in English?
atb,  Lawrence

---

From: Paul Kyzivat <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:18:33 -0400

> Have we all forgotten that the English word is actually spelled "light"? 

Nah! Remember, this is *English* we are talking about. "Lite" is now a 
word in its own right, similar in meaning to "light", but "lighter". :-)

	Paul

---

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 08:58:26 -0400

Indeed, it appears in the american heritage dictionary now.

But to address the bigger issue here, of multiple modes, I think this is 
NOT a good idea. I think it is a mistake for ICE to go down these paths 
of lots of modes that need to be signaled and understood. You end up 
with a combinatoric explosion of complexity considering behavior when an 
agent of one mode hits an agent of another mode. ICE was designed to be 
extensible through other means, primarily through additional candidate 
attributes and through new localized algorithms for candidate selection 
(allowed by the regular nomination process). The latter requires no 
signaling support whatsoever.

So, I oppose the proposed change.

-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

---

From: "Alfred E. Heggestad" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:33:59 +0200

Jonathan,

OK agreed, the number of combinations is already high enough ;)

/alfred