IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ice] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com> Fri, 07 September 2018 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <nohlmeier@mozilla.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 846F8130E5E for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=mozilla.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 pYLnTTfzxKHo for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) (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 C534E130E74 for <ice@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id u11-v6so7038640plq.5 for <ice@ietf.org>; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mozilla.com; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=kxRleG4LVbpgAlBe0LjjqlFMcVzliWpF4CkmmCyAM6k=; b=Ffyo5oA4o1sFCYLeQTNx+h38wZD1DzSQYWQZy6gexp2+tJKTuiS4LQGvBmLFdO4X3t QKLlfLNhleAMNLTBoBndtM5ecVsiAqmgPmvO3PzldIDxVCgu6zWIR5947M4IkxeYKgJx 4nHbYhyXYuV3ZGeoDmSSxU51OxQ9ToACo7KgQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=kxRleG4LVbpgAlBe0LjjqlFMcVzliWpF4CkmmCyAM6k=; b=HhWwdoypUFNqHjgL+7XkEG6m3I/8zXgxff+SEktYTTHKTNeeb85Wh23Jlu8+g3uNps pBnQaoBkWBZg7/vPWE/KyJun6vXLCKPX4kPBFalGY32WCc9HwD5ZInl38NsF2FlLFC9b MP+xBRxeMux3ZsLSKYhINOTcTafhY9uRMsIuHOhoVXNA68CvcCXp42FMYmuF98kHOjG1 b6JLBFb9dhiZHfpQWp2vcz5tEMqcJiSjIvO9Ey3o/KSXXgx6ttUXQgFtSP2Zf6wTO3tZ JMmAs59fgrEI+a85pAojdfWe+MCUZKrjICaFAyzqBLTgYr61Bfz8VLMO+/a4kkEkVepC 147A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51DPaRa8UDqLoIVl00UdTxs/8sXVT/WX0QhXHhCsZQ1CHXBQfevG pGCgr70PZQdoFItt+/Z64EAGNA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdY6euAXdtgztKFykgQya1FaAk2IbnJdNMEicf3YHXOjDMTdcWrUoBk85zGToZmT4BUZiIeZkg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b688:: with SMTP id c8-v6mr9757113pls.114.1536350166255; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4600:3f31:f1b4:fa2c:dab4:bde9? ([2601:647:4600:3f31:f1b4:fa2c:dab4:bde9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s14-v6sm14010290pfj.105.2018.09.07.12.56.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>
Message-Id: <52EA7B1E-D7BE-4940-B6C2-9F9AE90D3DAC@mozilla.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_08F6DABC-271D-484E-82C5-CB686D533A45"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:56:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <dc1d42b9ee4a425fa44976575c92ba86@ericsson.com>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art@ietf.org>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>, "clue@ietf.org" <clue@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
References: <15d3b114-5c04-61c4-8a62-61d8a414143d@nostrum.com> <7D1A35C5-FF09-4F93-ABA8-74D877952EF0@iii.ca> <46E40ED2-D289-4C0F-8C0B-82A5980B2692@ericsson.com> <E05D7CB4-832E-4221-ADFE-D8F317EEA8F1@iii.ca> <dc1d42b9ee4a425fa44976575c92ba86@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/MH8R4qFNnnjAoTagxo1m8P3B73U>
Subject: Re: [Ice] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238
X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 07 Sep 2018 19:56:11 -0000


> On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:25, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> dig not indicate an improvement of connectivity rates. I did not see results from others that did. Some of the early test results from
>> others that drove this work were not reproducible in our testing. The one thing I think most people did find is that the more out of
>> sync the pacing of the two agents was, the worse the connectivity was. But all of this is water under the bridge, we have old and
>> new ice, people can use either. What we are talking about here is what is the minimum bar for WebRTC 1.0
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but WebRTC 1.0 does use trickle, and does not use aggressive nomination.

Sorry but that is not correct. Firefox does use aggressive nomination. Chrome (and everyone who copies their full stack including their ICE implementation) does not. I’m not aware of any normative language for any of the WebRTC specs demanding to use full nomination only.

Best
  Nils Ohlmeier

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email