IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ice] ICE Generation clarification questions

Thomas Stach <thomass.stach@gmail.com> Tue, 28 February 2017 06:43 UTC

Return-Path: <thomass.stach@gmail.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 44BAB1293F4 for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:43:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 fi8VgOzDEt0a for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:43:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wr0-x231.google.com (mail-wr0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::231]) (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 986581294CD for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:43:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wr0-x231.google.com with SMTP id g10so1936784wrg.2 for <ice@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:43:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=UCDE7zFRnkz45bUTyPW3WhrliQy7NbccRVirlFeuTV8=; b=l73nxtmXaJGCA1iXnLS8iUhWWpjDSXP7zvxumI3gv7wV9DlB0lNJVtPSCYJ53rtWGv RCUlMxjellpAQK5X33pxJruUzlMLTGhk1cm3npabUxX2fGUCg/HdksNJX9qIluO8MKyj B3g9CbrOoTqYkpgedbGtxf6jTS2VWFOSduNWx6c/48/gbV0+sd7g5DPySlp+2F4sU3Ag AzuKgg14OK3GxDW+oM/av0OMbXjZYDIuiHJMFSFqf4orzcc59G9Up1HnWt5+Ou5SRqZ4 xpboRSS1RZmkR8io3YMj8a/ieIHpdupUBuXpGrlpuyzXpQ0kVA8eICVfOKj98UjeZH7z fM8A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=UCDE7zFRnkz45bUTyPW3WhrliQy7NbccRVirlFeuTV8=; b=KXB6PALNbdIahFTJK5R4hebLxYtyzbPXiPzcC6S4VLACZnk5hYWfJOynQzgP8tKu7A LfklhgxspLfee3zAOQwzxFAjyUq2nWoNv0wO4EI+UbFE0mS/yOMgVy1fWVPgg7OgkO/E kazvSaAnuZ2OTuhPWiiqSkq7uXXpHFyH3NCfHuAM3kkRezoN5AAIQDszwv1x8vb/j26/ 3zrcbJNNZlEanvb09jA8MwcnN13gfboeG1dZj9SRYRfLhlscnJ34DHipJ2x4M5IJ7C12 ELEoR3TtBfJdmt55WTufl09F7+IuDN+Ieudu4blH6uvsVRqIuoowVk8c1namYTfNhdMf xFXg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39l6KLu7U8SuF6fsSHPGQFwdDHPfo30aLEHwVf4i9UEGUQH0FVKphkjOVF4plJewvQ==
X-Received: by 10.223.167.138 with SMTP id j10mr644544wrc.178.1488264212173; Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:43:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.114] (dsl-linz7-19-68.utaonline.at. [81.189.19.68]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id v1sm891727wra.65.2017.02.27.22.43.31 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 27 Feb 2017 22:43:31 -0800 (PST)
To: Taylor Brandstetter <deadbeef@google.com>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@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> <CAK35n0ZyQBa2jttppGzVaKnfUTR1uTUCCtRfLQced+MpAmXQUA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thomas Stach <thomass.stach@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2156e67b-7711-691e-2a47-9445646fab9d@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 07:43:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAK35n0ZyQBa2jttppGzVaKnfUTR1uTUCCtRfLQced+MpAmXQUA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------53CABE59838164DE992CCA6F"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/q4CycfqXh6RR6j0aUM68IQiRthI>
Cc: 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: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:43:35 -0000

+1


On 2017-02-27 23:38, Taylor Brandstetter wrote:
> Noting the connection sounds good.
>
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im 
> <mailto: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>
>     > <mailto: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> <mailto:Ice@ietf.org
>     <mailto:Ice@ietf.org>>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>
>     >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>>
>     >
>     >
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email