IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] trickle-ice review

Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Tue, 07 July 2015 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C60B51A1A6D for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 7Y9AfEd8xHan for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU004-OMC2S3.hotmail.com (blu004-omc2s3.hotmail.com [65.55.111.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F3F71A1A39 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BLU406-EAS191 ([65.55.111.73]) by BLU004-OMC2S3.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:53:10 -0700
X-TMN: [CXtj2qP6ENwAVeF5tFgp53BleFGTGW4J]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU406-EAS191616968BE16B1686143A293920@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <559B4F02.9050305@andyet.net>
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <559B4F02.9050305@andyet.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 00:53:06 -0700
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jul 2015 07:53:10.0165 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7D42450:01D0B889]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/0gIigXkyikGwAnNfpKnkZ_DyVMA>
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] trickle-ice review
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 07:53:12 -0000

On Jul 6, 2015, at 9:16 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> wrote:
> As we have discovered recently (see the research the Philipp Hancke has been performing on deployed WebRTC audio/video services), the best call setup time and thus user experience is found by sending only relayed candidates first.

[BA] This result has been known for quite some time - and provides an argument that the recommended priority formula is sub-optimal. However, the question is what to do if relay candidates are not yet available, but host candidates are. Are you saying it is optimal to wait and trickle relay candidates??

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email