Re: [bfcpbis] BFCPbis: UDP- and TCP candidates and proto value

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Wed, 19 October 2016 13:06 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD825129459 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sH8kRXRYwhb6 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88B0212952C for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 06:06:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-b87ff70000000cb2-d7-58076fd9925c
Received: from ESESSHC017.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.69]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3F.8C.03250.9DF67085; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:06:34 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.90]) by ESESSHC017.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.69]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 15:06:33 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] BFCPbis: UDP- and TCP candidates and proto value
Thread-Index: AQHSGa3x+izuQLaNQkCcn/MwWSz+h6CjBJQAgATKB4CABHhQAIAAQMmAgANalwD//9npAIAANloA
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:06:32 +0000
Message-ID: <D42D4B50.1165E%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <9BE360E6-8462-49BC-9491-7143D476EEAD@cisco.com> <28B9D43D-FF01-4294-BCD6-93E72C0C07E1@gmail.com> <D426777A.11238%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <42A8BAE9-A6C2-4112-97FC-2DAE01F9AB0D@gmail.com> <D42A6D07.1138D%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <D42D3DE9.11645%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <EC53FDEE-0A52-488D-AF36-EDACE0A69232@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <EC53FDEE-0A52-488D-AF36-EDACE0A69232@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.6.9.160926
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.147]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="euc-kr"
Content-ID: <FD0628AFDC82A641A1E62520A4E6BCDF@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrAIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7q+6tfPYIgw0XbSxWnlvBbPFv3VEm i02zvrBZzLgwldmBxWPK742sHjtn3WX3WLLkJ5PHrSkFASxRXDYpqTmZZalF+nYJXBk9uy+w FTTIVkyZsZCpgXGBTBcjJ4eEgInEhfUv2boYuTiEBNYzSjz78pkZwlnMKDHp4xb2LkYODjYB C4nuf9ogpoiAssTyWawgvcwCtRL/pj9nBrGFBdwl9k6dzAhR4iExr6scJCwiECUxs/cKWAmL gKpEx9ETLCA2r4C1xOzZs1khNr1mkliwuR9sJqeArcTaN+vZQWxGATGJ76fWMEHsEpe49WQ+ E8TNAhJL9pxnhrBFJV4+/scKsldUQE9izf0wEFNCQEli2tY0iE4tiS8/9rFB2NYSW+/tZYaw FSWmdD9khzhHUOLkzCcsExjFZyFZNgtJ+ywk7bOQtM9C0r6AkXUVo2hxanFSbrqRkV5qUWZy cXF+nl5easkmRmA8Htzy22AH48vnjocYBTgYlXh4FZLZIoRYE8uKK3MPMUpwMCuJ8F7MY48Q 4k1JrKxKLcqPLyrNSS0+xCjNwaIkzmu28n64kEB6YklqdmpqQWoRTJaJg1OqgbFYIPqI6GfV e3KlfS+4T3z3W/H9DdfRP4zqN1kbeCZMuiSivfCY5vbkE90liYdMjy2JSp4nZGN7OH3S43sN f474Vt55u1Ok4bCtmXiE75Fju5RMbuzmd97KkZLwbL1e43vhmFt7L2R/0Yr7I8gR2HG62+fn uS7n8OsX+9VYd8xWN9q+oXpCc4ASS3FGoqEWc1FxIgAMEcwewwIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/-VKOMcuHav2aj9bymbPba9rDigk>
Cc: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, "Charles Eckel \(eckelcu\)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] BFCPbis: UDP- and TCP candidates and proto value
X-BeenThere: bfcpbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: BFCPBIS working group discussion list <bfcpbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/bfcpbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:bfcpbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bfcpbis>, <mailto:bfcpbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:06:37 -0000

Hi,

>>>>>I guess one solution would be to allow the answerer to use a m- line
>>>>> proto value that does NOT match the default candidate (or, doesn¹t
>>>>>match
>>>>> ANY candidate).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> That would certainly work in this scenario - different from the SCTP
>>>> text, but would permit this behaviour, whilst still providing clear
>>>> guidance.
>>> 
>>> We would update the SCTP text too.
>>> 
>>>> However, I fear that would go against the ICE spec; specifically, 5245
>>>> says:
>>>> 
>>>>  The transport addresses that will be the default destination for
>>>>  media when communicating with non-ICE peers MUST also be present as
>>>>  candidates in one or more a=candidate lines.
>>>> 
>>>> So we¹d no longer be adhering to that in the answer.
>>> 
>>> The text is certainly valid for the offer, but when the answer is sent
>>>it
>>> is known whether the peers support ICE or not.
>>> 
>>> In any case, I don¹t think there should be different rules for BFCF,
>>>SCTP
>>> etc. This should be defined in draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp as a
>>>generic
>>> rule.
>> 
>> 
>> I was thinking a little more about this: maybe indicating a transport in
>> the m- line that you don’t support isn’t a very good idea - even if it
>> won’t be used with ICE.
>> 
>> Maybe it would be better to say that the m- line shall contain a
>>transport
>> that the peer is “most likely” to support. In case of BFCP, I guess
>> neither TCP or UDP is mandatory to support, but in other cases there is
>> often a mandatory transport.
>
>That still implies they need to support the transport in question, so
>it’s not dissimilar to the SCTP text about default candidate.

The idea was that, if the answerer doesn’t support the transport in the m-
line of the offer, it would have to reject the m- line (as you pointed out
earlier).

>Question really is - and this is probably something more for icebis than
>here - would it be legitimate to relax that requirement in the text I
>quoted earlier for the answerer? (The way it is written in 5245 suggests
>it applies to both offerer and answerer). I don’t see it being a problem
>for endpoints, but I’d be worried some proxies may expect behaviour here
>which isn’t true.

I DID send an e-mail to the MMUSIC list (I think it is more related to
SIP/SDP-usage of ICE than ICE in general) about this a few days ago, but
nobody has replied. Feel free to jump on the discussion :)

Obviously, if you e.g., include TCP in the m- line of the answer (because
the offer contained TCP), but you don’t actually support TCP, the m- line
port value would only be a “dummy value”.

Regards,

Christer