W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webrtc@w3.org > July 2012

Re: Feedback on the PeerConnection API

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 12:43:56 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxv9b2h+RyT3XvTxhhsZdoCymmSB-cS7ZG1SjPRZv=N39w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com>
Cc: "public-webrtc@w3.org" <public-webrtc@w3.org>
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Li Li <Li.NJ.Li@huawei.com> wrote:

>  > I agree, a way to not use any STUN or TURN server should be specified.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> You should be able to just not provide servers.****
>
> ** **
>
> I think we need to distinguish two cases even without any STUN/TURN
> server: 1) do ICE without it; 2) don’t do ICE at all.****
>
> ** **
>
> In case 1), I think the ICE agent will still perform host candidate
> gathering and checking (STUN Bind Request/Response) even without other
> types of candidates found from the servers. ****
>
> In case 2), the ICE agent is disabled and no ICE messages are exchanged
> between peers before RTP – which could be useful if the peer doesn’t
> support ICE.****
>
> ** **
>
>
>
WebRTC clients will not communicate with peers that do not support ICE.
Please see the previous discussions on this list, but the main reason for
requiring ICE is to ensure consent from the remote party before sending any
RTP to it in order to avoid using WebRTC for DOS attacks.
_____________
Roman Shpount
Received on Friday, 13 July 2012 16:44:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 15:19:28 UTC