IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ice] ICE PAC: When to start the timer waiting for possible peer reflexive candidates?

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Mon, 29 April 2019 19:14 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 E3EB71206A6 for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:14:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 m-RjTNsvYFLq for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52d.google.com (mail-pg1-x52d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52d]) (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 C13001206A5 for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52d.google.com with SMTP id c13so4647798pgt.1 for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=kTzn3osVzyGEBVAicjHSttWpakoGBc5x9BDD0KFS1Gc=; b=n8QVIyQLbNK5BZd0yn7xD4hPO0cejw6nPcCSFcsY7gGhZx3wheBy9y9FX3zaZQg2yc lbZSzNb5mWbgsWGP5j0hYDW+VUoKNNIKLKxp1bUQWcrm1NT4laHWTRU+Zgfkb/RRGBLR o5viHuOUrTTosD/L4r8rOX1bv/y/ntN23SYkhtvhxJxm1PfBcI+i9vNbWWW6Nw3q2pE4 fT5MDtVNlvTG1yd7u/8W1EUJgEvWokzXHVSCGo0Vmd2oDoQ332OuFafSurkMMYIcXq36 TfBYMpETHTRq9YVOzVMigZGyM+pCfc2mHK/2RmaQJAKbrs9ysHc+XU+3MTQ+H3Ypt6Rn Dljw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kTzn3osVzyGEBVAicjHSttWpakoGBc5x9BDD0KFS1Gc=; b=myX/mDxK91pVMyMu12g7QU/tggcfq42JN5C8Yqt4R4BE+TX9EOmNfyXTdTNn/qaf1z jY3S+eOqSEwnfxS6gnHk5V36RmpEkqm4+VtIqQlQVv//0n2OpUQY21/SJQ2JgTJQ6Zh7 XLgZAO5mEl2J98M001mwVRkJrsoo2Tqxea7DOwvjqn7iDZbSG87khSVOTaZBihH/Gexb NTQnvWhGSnEMyEhHNFsBYfUypNHH5LBLSiQOtwn+2NTxLIVf19Vh4CyCBodHiIB4Wmyf UGIfrFnPWGfkcJDCnwStYDEbmMQ4KqFQxqgi+U7yVbxqxR2aQf2ePpqGfgFghA1fEeyU 2NjA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVboLJgAg+e5/8SwydgIBrFTrb3Ep0Mc0bg4AACKe8pPTQbqvOl KVhioC2Xkqmlj0b6eG+IB01ZffTzdLg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyh6Gaxj8Q1aD6nFowVzhkQPswXFDVL2pvM5ho/sSG71Svm3xlijtNKpCMsIxxZmXMNF13rcg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:e10b:: with SMTP id z11mr59958584pgh.46.1556565291251; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:14:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-f172.google.com (mail-pf1-f172.google.com. [209.85.210.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b19sm43263743pgb.51.2019.04.29.12.14.50 for <ice@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-f172.google.com with SMTP id j11so5784242pff.13 for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a63:8dc8:: with SMTP id z191mr25274811pgd.9.1556565290076; Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:14:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <3A66B735-03C9-41FF-95AD-500B0D469C80@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxsMgNTQPNP4Ni72H+yD4iUeyNK+x6CSvdBApGnPTpr_vg@mail.gmail.com> <A4EC3C01-4D7D-45DF-876D-E58706F74866@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxt8tDemkK=v4X1gjwJGLYrxcd95S7uV53_fsga6grZ_rA@mail.gmail.com> <30518269-CA9D-4F50-8CE3-062A01DBCD7F@mozilla.com> <CAD5OKxvmRK8Xzu4FSRv3Lgdg-VrrufzGhjAdSmfcLLkrm-jtjw@mail.gmail.com> <0AD3077C-74FA-4585-942A-375B83B3A7A0@ericsson.com> <CAD5OKxsgpf7Hv_nxFOZFwfNk7-_xNRzmoPTA2bZCqZo3wzudKQ@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB316172053751D307F83DE0EB933E0@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxu332E8vzdc4dt09NxXGf9Cr2izwECDAQjc7V_YDx3r5w@mail.gmail.com> <AAC20A8E-D3D5-4DB9-9ADC-2AAD2194EF79@mozilla.com> <CAD5OKxucO9TNoZOE=AGPwZ8V4cN58n_CRraBJBDVvQR=DW+KFA@mail.gmail.com> <2CF0DF15-BCDB-46DF-8824-9D1017190649@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <2CF0DF15-BCDB-46DF-8824-9D1017190649@ericsson.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 15:14:39 -0400
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvG9xga=e7_6fUX7AvHq=tEeUfNj25FnyK-witaEiGqUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvG9xga=e7_6fUX7AvHq=tEeUfNj25FnyK-witaEiGqUQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000002f50820587b0199f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/OqbScU0xSEmNsQocng5htIBvJ6k>
Subject: Re: [Ice] ICE PAC: When to start the timer waiting for possible peer reflexive candidates?
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: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:14:54 -0000

On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 5:24 AM Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> >One thing I was considering is that we should make ICE PAC mandatory for
> anything that includes ice-options: ice2.
> >I think it is already implied with my latest pull request to ice-sip-sdp.
>
> 'ice2' is defined by RFC 8445. It is not ice-sip-sdp specific.
>
>
You are correct, ice2 is defined in RFC 8445. This being said, anything
which implements ice-sip-sdp must include ice-options ice2, which means if
ice2 option is negotiated via ice-sip-sdp, all ice-sip-sdp procedures must
be used. If ice-sip-sdp will require PAC, then this would be pulled in as
well. We can deliberately separate and add another ice extension for PAC or
empty candidate lists, but this would be  mostly redundant.

In any case, anything which  implements RFC 8445 would likely need to
implement PAC, since PAC is a specification fix/clarification, not some
additional functionality.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email