- From: <piranna@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 18:00:11 +0200
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@skype.net>
- Cc: Luis López Fernández <luis.lopez@urjc.es>, "Anniruddh Koppal (Persistent Systems Ltd.)" <v-ankopp@microsoft.com>, "public-orca@w3.org" <public-orca@w3.org>
> It breaks down at step 9. That won't be permitted until A has talked to B and B has talked to A. > > The reason it doesn't work is: > A can't send to B without knowing ICE credentials. > B can't send to A without knowing ICE credentials. > Data, other than ICE, cannot be exchanged until both are talking to each other. Both media and data channels require that the four way DTLS handshake completes. > But on step 9, why is not possible to send the data from A to B? A has the B connection data, with the IP and port. Is not included in the connection data the ICE credentials? I though it was... Does it has any problem the scheme that I proposed that prevent me for sugesting to add this data/feature? > CU-RTC-Web would allow what you are describing, but only by adding custom STUN parameters to connectivity checks. That feature wasn't considered important enough to retain. > Oh, sh*t... :-( By who? What was the reason? Could that use case being re-considered? -- "Si quieres viajar alrededor del mundo y ser invitado a hablar en un monton de sitios diferentes, simplemente escribe un sistema operativo Unix." – Linus Tordvals, creador del sistema operativo Linux
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2013 16:00:59 UTC