IETF Logo Mail Archive

[bfcpbis] FW: Do we want to mandate all protocols supporting ICE and multiple transports to support transport switch on-the-fly before nomination?

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Sat, 19 November 2016 09:30 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 7AD0712953C for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 01:30:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 R7kaQ-hSZy17 for <bfcpbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 01:30:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (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 603BE1294C7 for <bfcpbis@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 01:30:26 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-48ecb98000000994-ce-58301bb02ca4
Received: from ESESSHC024.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.90]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id F5.51.02452.0BB10385; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 10:30:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB209.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.16]) by ESESSHC024.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.90]) with mapi id 14.03.0319.002; Sat, 19 Nov 2016 10:30:24 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "bfcpbis@ietf.org" <bfcpbis@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Do we want to mandate all protocols supporting ICE and multiple transports to support transport switch on-the-fly before nomination?
Thread-Index: AdJCRurmAgGp6u03Tl6w25hg1S1vSQAAF5zw
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 09:30:23 +0000
Message-ID: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BE75311@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BE742CE@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BE742CE@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.154]
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="_004_7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B4BE75311ESESSMB209erics_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFrrCIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7lO4GaYMIgyMrtC3+rTvK5MDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujGPnjjMWXLGvuNL5jbmB8YB5FyMnh4SAicTN07tZuxi5OIQE 1jFKrN9whg0kISSwmFHi5X2nLkYODjYBC4nuf9ogYREBTYnN2+8ygdQLC0xmlHj9dQUbiCMi MIVR4sydNSwQVUYSG6Y8BbNZBFQl3m+ayAxi8wr4Siy5expqga/EjyXNjCA2p4CfxL1DB8Hq GQXEJL6fWsMEYjMLiEvcejKfCeJSEYmHFyF6JQREJV4+/scKYStJLLr9Gao+U2LlydfsELsE JU7OfMIygVF4FpJRs5CUzUJSBhHPlzi1/xwzhK0jsWD3JzYIW1ti2cLXzDD2mQOPmTDFdSWO nD/GDmErSrRtbwbq5QKyVzBK3NjZD9VgLbFg2nJWmKIp3Q/ZFzDyrmIULU4tLs5NNzLWSy3K TC4uzs/Ty0st2cQIjN+DW37r7mBc/drxEKMAB6MSD2+BuH6EEGtiWXFl7iFGFaA5jzasvsAo xZKXn5eqJMIrIWkQIcSbklhZlVqUH19UmpNafIhRmoNFSZzXbOX9cCGB9MSS1OzU1ILUIpgs EwenVAPjBv7TkrWyjMF3tcUeXX3FZuosdVC+S/E91/bbnOHPFV+JXwlprO2ViNm7zKhgo+3d Ti02Ua+T1ksN55n2lHmJiVxfmMO1S/tYcxF/sHXhhhiDJ7F5EduXHtk058XLjK/L9Na7P3lu 7PDcXdhT9qrXypMp71e4npdJT3p1kYFNrW7KWyZevmtKLMUZiYZazEXFiQCbCmU35wIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/bfcpbis/74zw-Z-6--Ih7vKkbGPJlHKgxBQ>
Subject: [bfcpbis] FW: Do we want to mandate all protocols supporting ICE and multiple transports to support transport switch on-the-fly before nomination?
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: Sat, 19 Nov 2016 09:30:28 -0000

Forwarding to bfcpbis, as this is very much related to BFCP. If you have comments, please bring those to the ICE WG list, so we get everything in one place :)

Regards,

Christer

From: Ice [mailto:ice-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
Sent: 19 November 2016 11:27
To: ice@ietf.org
Subject: [Ice] Do we want to mandate all protocols supporting ICE and multiple transports to support transport switch on-the-fly before nomination?

Hi,

One potential issue that came to my mind while reading the SDP m- line thread.

Previously, before removal of aggressive nomination, while and endpoint might support both UDP and TCP for a protocol, it didn't have to be able to simultaneously use the protocol with both UDP and TCP, and switching between. Because, until nomination was done, no protocol data was sent. And, once nomination had been done, endpoints used the protocol with the selected transport.

Now, with the allowed-to-send-media-before-nomination rules, protocols basically have to support switch of transport (from UDP to TCP, and vice versa), until the nomination takes place.

Now, even people always say that a good designed protocol should be transport-independent, isn't *mandating* transport switching on-the-fly (before nomination takes place) by all protocols supporting ICE and multiple transports a bad thing to do?

Perhaps the ICE considerations of each protocol (RTP, BFCP etc) should indicate whether transport switching is supported, and whether there are protocol specific procedures associated with that. I guess a protocol could also specify that data shouldn't be sent in the first place before nomination has been done, if there are good reasons for that.

Regards,

Christer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email