Re: [Ice] Review of draft-holmberg-ice-pac-01

[Bernard Aboba <[e-mail]>]

A question has arisen recently about the behavior with respect to peer
reflexive candidates discovered *after* ICE completion:
https://github.com/w3c/webrtc-nv-use-cases/issues/10

draft-holmberg-ice-pac doesn't relate to that question, but I'm wondering
whether we might also see significant differences in implementation
behavior there as well. RFC 8445 appears to require an ICE restart to be
able to use a newly discovered peer reflexive candidate after ICE
completion because it represents a change in the destination, but I'm
wondering if there are implementations that enable a peer reflexive
candidate to be used anyway.

Christer Holmberg said:

"Hi,

Doing an ICE restart means you have to collect and exchange candidates
again. Of course one can do that once ICE failure has been declared,
and nothing prevents one from doing an ICE restart after that if one
thinks the result will be different. But, the focus of the draft is
not to declare ICE failure while working candidates may still arrive.

Having said that, one should of course not wait forever for the peer
reflexive candidates. The draft will not mandate a specific time
value, but there probably will be a little more text about things to
take into consideration when determining how long to wait.

Regards,


Christer"