IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ice] ICE Generation clarification questions

Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com> Mon, 27 February 2017 22:39 UTC

Return-Path: <deadbeef@google.com>
X-Original-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9425812943B for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:39:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.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 tUmjxfNSeOmj for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x229.google.com (mail-qk0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9972E1293FE for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:38:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x229.google.com with SMTP id n186so44850422qkb.3 for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:38:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HGaAPq7/OfbHs4Lil4plPPVdR4A5j5AriPka5ECGhmE=; b=NKXlqJXdaFN+B/SgAv3JjTayM42i8+6PtHHOheJdD7aG6QbdsDZ0Wj9pEm9BizzbcF avwPi6N+nWM5dJeX9UbGNHNbZpRefpophgPRw4eUihPWlhxBVdkY6E8GVnUM8PCKIR0I MDHUK8gkaybBhKPiM2gdFplWzTtLvmLWJoGzN8z6NgnDsJt18xV465GY9Zw3tsB9cwwY j8hu2q9+0AX94PZBLWAnzp+x8HUuwmPyFdd8h4zepDwyOjCW/+3EZvD8r1GLf8wQSeaQ 1w74kbVKDUZPGuEYuzu2mvAt+rpzqWR2W62fKS/pWxatN+gnV2OPb+Udg16IuxpKLS13 eTFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HGaAPq7/OfbHs4Lil4plPPVdR4A5j5AriPka5ECGhmE=; b=FD/kA5yiBql7NlxoYMxArzbH6gi+3ZKHxw/1T0vcUir5VkOSarVhufre6LVcErZX2S enbdDxAFUGez0d00dDC5XajO2wfy1faCb/HAavwjhKpPhsiHo60OzE7xKvauieOd8hwS nylhqnPASTniDwmo0U7Cl2GJrf5iArxwRsm9u1PZCLeRs6WP9E2vUWnlPPI6yt3jBfqY hlC5G5QlArIsULTk+hKI14ufLGKUWOm0WhRwdOr8AafyY5IQQ6wRJcCZyoAWMnsrwvNz 82CT+RMHGcEw+zpjzHfD0Aba56UdkcrzkBf96i9vsAj+W3Ivtdtc9BmWFeqD1Cfh8JNT eSIg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kjX9R9LdXGO3NwNI85bMocF9YchVGd7UNq6h+ptINBMMMdrg9TH7sgsk6XLv2DGk1GZIXr8UPUfr4PL6YG
X-Received: by 10.237.54.162 with SMTP id f31mr18103396qtb.2.1488235137552; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:38:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.38.163 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:38:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <73898e41-dd66-e0be-0415-e5753880f0d1@stpeter.im>
References: <148779754359.31167.11057689797490201951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <ca682f16-d926-d11e-ae03-6a84dfa84b68@gmail.com> <a0ca345c-75dd-002d-edc3-e829b5a60869@stpeter.im> <CAK35n0abCrm2WDd8PfQmnDBNrwf4vdCTUL9+TXSZkobATGs-cw@mail.gmail.com> <73898e41-dd66-e0be-0415-e5753880f0d1@stpeter.im>
From: Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:38:57 -0800
Message-ID: <CAK35n0ZyQBa2jttppGzVaKnfUTR1uTUCCtRfLQced+MpAmXQUA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146f022b7996505498abe2d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/1zZxGLQS5R8kv1HF8Pr7WpQf2MU>
Cc: Thomas Stach <thomass.stach@gmail.com>, ice@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ice] ICE Generation clarification questions
X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" <ice.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ice/>
List-Post: <mailto:ice@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:39:00 -0000

Noting the connection sounds good.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
wrote:

> Exactly. Would it help to describe it that way or at least note the
> connection?
>
> On 2/27/17 2:55 PM, Taylor Brandstetter wrote:
> > Another way of looking at it is that a given generation is identified by
> > a local/remote ufrag pair, which will change on ICE restart.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im
> > <mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 2/27/17 2:13 AM, Thomas Stach wrote:
> >     > Hi,
> >     >
> >     > I'm a bit confused about the definition of an ICE Generation and
> how it
> >     > is used in Section 14
> >
> >     To be clear for folks on the list, this is in reference to the
> trickle
> >     draft.
> >
> >     >    Generation:  The complete set of candidates sent within an ICE
> >     >       negotiation session.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Section 14 and the definition of Half/Full Trickle then uses terms
> like
> >     > "first generation"
> >     > "complete generation",
> >
> >     For half trickle purposes, I think it would be best to use the phrase
> >     "full generation" or even "complete set of candidates". That is:
> under
> >     half trickle, in the initial ICE description the initiator sends all
> the
> >     candidates it might possibly send.
> >
> >     > "the responder can respond with an incomplete generation of
> candidates",
> >     >
> >     > "full generation"
> >     >
> >     > This seems to imply that the generation is not necessarily the
> complete
> >     > set of candidates,
> >
> >     The generation is as defined above: the complete set of candidates
> sent
> >     within an ICE negotiation session. It would be better here to use the
> >     phrase "incomplete set of candidates".
> >
> >     > but could grow during aICE Negotiation Session until
> end-of-candidates
> >     > is signalled.
> >     > So the generation rather seems to be the extensible set of
> currently
> >     > known/exchanged candidates.
> >
> >     No, the generation is everything sent before an ICE restart (if
> any). In
> >     trickle the set can grow over time, whereas in regular ICE it can't.
> >
> >     > It is also not clear to me if the candidates sent by the ICE
> initiator
> >     > and the ICE responder
> >     > belong to  different generations or if the generation is the union
> of
> >     > both candidate sets.
> >
> >     It is the union.
> >
> >     Peter
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Ice mailing list
> >     Ice@ietf.org <mailto:Ice@ietf.org>
> >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
> >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>
> >
> >
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email