Re: [bfcpbis] [MMUSIC] m= line protocol in case of ICE

"Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com> Thu, 01 December 2016 20:32 UTC

Return-Path: <eckelcu@cisco.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 BE53E129D59; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:32:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 l08XWHNej4wz; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:32:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9BDC129F1C; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 12:17:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=8914; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1480623434; x=1481833034; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=qnW6uu6RBBQKhUli4NAppEQmWFs1pdGca/KnU5CH/2U=; b=B4UBgcUzWVQKXPhCIg5BLteoDJfqtGldEJU1lAWSGce7o6nTJZk49K85 tPp1X45dUkwXNv103KXGcLaSziXjh5VBHdBiHV03jiwY8sf8NIDJGTbpJ VIqw9iKpVD1B3PnIJdWW53NqZvXh1A+Z9g/EDyEsBlMTbr7i9JL/CtPje M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AkAQAlhEBY/5RdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBBwEBAQEBgnNFAQEBAQEfWIEGB40+lwuHcodmgxKCDoIFhiICGoFwPxQBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQFiKIRoAQEBBCNWEAIBCBEDAQIoAwICAh8RFAkIAgQOBYhTAxesYoIpL?= =?us-ascii?q?4cQDYNwAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHIg7gl6CSIIhFoJOLYIwBZR1hTQ?= =?us-ascii?q?1AY0yg12QNolGhDSECwEeN4EZMQEBhSJyiDaBDQEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,726,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="353984411"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Dec 2016 20:17:13 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com (xch-rcd-017.cisco.com [173.37.102.27]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uB1KHDvF015411 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 Dec 2016 20:17:14 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-018.cisco.com (173.36.7.28) by XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com (173.37.102.27) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:17:13 -0600
Received: from xch-aln-018.cisco.com ([173.36.7.28]) by XCH-ALN-018.cisco.com ([173.36.7.28]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 1 Dec 2016 14:17:13 -0600
From: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Thread-Topic: [bfcpbis] [MMUSIC] m= line protocol in case of ICE
Thread-Index: AQHSQFwSEnIqX9JFq0OJWjTO/qYWEKDczAiAgAAW2ICAAXMeAIAR2UqAgACUI4CAArojgA==
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2016 20:17:13 +0000
Message-ID: <16B5D8FF-F132-4B09-84D6-AE964CA7858D@cisco.com>
References: <CAD5OKxuhvCz82+7JK8QrArtrYcjV9+b7vWMpWRnCjNbrL++srA@mail.gmail.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BE3AE83@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <CAD5OKxu15YgYO0xyWMYXv7VTAVVQ71iJhH_txt31BV0CvCSjqg@mail.gmail.com> <F96AC385-2721-4652-98F5-1BF92F06214A@gmail.com> <D0210B5A-138A-4C86-8D14-6E1FEC011E33@cisco.com> <CAD5OKxuzpVRsR0cMeUyhe35sA9W6bL=p1=0RUpTqwpQDyinwDA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxuzpVRsR0cMeUyhe35sA9W6bL=p1=0RUpTqwpQDyinwDA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.1b.0.161010
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.20.182.35]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_16B5D8FFF1324B0984D6AE964CA7858Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/0f90TGXkFdAP1PsnVQfY7H6_Cd8>
Cc: "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] [MMUSIC] m= line protocol in case of ICE
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: Thu, 01 Dec 2016 20:32:33 -0000

Roman,

Why would selecting TCP/BFCP as transport violate RFC 6544? Perhaps it does, but after a quick scan I am not sure why.

Cheers,
Charles

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 10:38 AM
To: Charles Eckel <eckelcu@cisco.com>
Cc: Alan Ford <alan.ford@gmail.com>om>, "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>rg>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>rg>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>rg>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [bfcpbis] [MMUSIC] m= line protocol in case of ICE

On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com<mailto:eckelcu@cisco.com>> wrote:
It seems to me that the most straightforward approach would be to mandate support for BFCP over UDP when using ICE, use UDP as the default candidate, and signal the BFCP m-line as if it is BFCP over UDP. If we can mandate the use of DTLS, that would be even better.
Thoughts?


I agree.

The only issue that I still have, if DTLS is not used, what protocol is used when ICE tcp candidate is selected for transport. Is this TCP/BFCP (which goes against RFC6544)  or is it UDP/BFCP with RFC4571 framing? If it is UDP/BFCP with RFC4571 framing, what transport tag should be used in the re-INVITE which is sent after ICE nomination with only selected candidate? Should it be TCP/UDP/BFCP or something similar?

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount