IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ice] ICE Generation clarification questions

Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im> Mon, 27 February 2017 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <stpeter@stpeter.im>
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 099F61293FF for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:53:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=stpeter.im header.b=UUNvKe1E; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=bxxSWo8f
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 YDzngxO-Otip for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com (new1-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.221]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D62631279EB for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 13:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 282B711BB; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:53:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from frontend2 ([10.202.2.161]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:53:35 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=stpeter.im; h= content-transfer-encoding:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-sender :x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s=mesmtp; bh=r12pJev7jeMHWVk EG/QL8lgWvPk=; b=UUNvKe1El8zEY00su9rTczgdTAw2h16FC7etrIxhNLXBtgc EWM+3qUrhoTq93fcCSJPqvEOYmLzYP/BsFB/VeiQgFgLpAOu+AXeuuirqwiykUGO YEUrxIGck2InjgZh8YKJc55G3GETQgyZRD5oW7in3566yA8NkyA5Y1KEiA9w=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc:x-sasl-enc; s= smtpout; bh=r12pJev7jeMHWVkEG/QL8lgWvPk=; b=bxxSWo8fnKv/Ex2CPKUI uxB/3Hhp2ILp52lLkVXSj+A4IXLiwfWjxFgOa4HgAg9ShRwJ6Jsu3grgh4wEADbn VQ7rl3/5ruRmGKUKG2NNYrzrjwzNTKxFfy+MgSvkP3wNA9bainYpW6vdewvPDe8T oAhP1+LjUEF0m+cLUrjo2Vs=
X-ME-Sender: <xms:3p-0WLuLYjto6bb1JB7UtK84YGJUKHbMnaS-N-MASUewNtHtZ1F29Q>
X-Sasl-enc: ro2Ksx1huld7nvyJ+uCl53F8CJZeKOxrmTmsY9ARtwOp 1488232414
Received: from aither.local (c-98-245-40-52.hsd1.co.comcast.net [98.245.40.52]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7F3AC241DA; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:53:34 -0500 (EST)
To: Thomas Stach <thomass.stach@gmail.com>, ice@ietf.org
References: <148779754359.31167.11057689797490201951.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <ca682f16-d926-d11e-ae03-6a84dfa84b68@gmail.com>
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Message-ID: <a0ca345c-75dd-002d-edc3-e829b5a60869@stpeter.im>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:53:33 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ca682f16-d926-d11e-ae03-6a84dfa84b68@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/O6BfPIkYtFUdb22NkySnNZ0pFaA>
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 21:53:37 -0000

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email