Subject: Re: [rtcweb] References to ICE in -overview

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 14:21:05 +0200

Sorry for not replying to this earlier; I'm preparing the new version of 
-overview now.

On 08/15/2013 07:04 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I just noticed that the only concrete RFC 5245 reference in -overview
> is in the appendicies.  The term "ICE agent" is defined by not used in
> the main body of the text.  ICE is never expanded on first use.
I expanded the reference in the terminology section. The main purpose of 
that definition was to get people conscious that when they use the term 
"Agent", they need to qualify what kind of agent it is.

I also deleted the ICE reference in section 4 (Data transport), since 
the -transports- draft goes into much more detail about ICE than the 
-overview- draft should.
>
> Should there be a more explicit reference to ICE in Section 7?

I don't think section 7 is the right place for it; section 7 is where we 
say "we don't want to do SIP, but we require the need to do what SIP is 
able to do". (Unless my numbering's gone haywire).

> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb

---

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2013 10:26:00 -0700

On 3 September 2013 05:21, Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I also deleted the ICE reference in section 4 (Data transport), since the
> -transports- draft goes into much more detail about ICE than the -overview-
> draft should.

Makes sense.  I made the comment before -transports- draft was published.