IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 06 September 2013 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEB1C21F9A17 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.602
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.602 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.002, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZnjWnXm23+wY for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:08:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23C5C21F9A16 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f47.google.com with SMTP id f12so3259429wgh.26 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=xJ+EiAj0KOvv7jKaA/Am1kfcqLy2CGAy+7U35QoH6DM=; b=B5+GJsjJ5mXpZyWQOr+cTQARErbuY+od5Z0YNeeoPwc7vmNI1O7g7k6Zy8EhBbKw/D Xe9dzO2T+DGtueCUQBwGGanmZPf1bw9umDYUbhpWpln8xM4uR7LxLg+lhZ9JcUH0g+Nh TsvGWxPpzfd1wXZqhZL8YozrZg/ViAMxvbwqMAmvRfTHne9F5BYwd6eDvPAEsIC2mQ9G VINfAwDC7fqWhKeK3wFeWuaMooFBJCNrt51TL32YBJjEy5nEAgvlKUegHJVf56y3fdnN 9UUnIkipZWS+GcdUNvpKKUeCMuvr7AtDG0/Kkl/OEFjmfFhMNQ9yN0Wzutvi2Zf9ikde K6MQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.39.38 with SMTP id m6mr11691518wik.10.1378494528351; Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.28.39 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:08:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <522A27AB.1020102@alum.mit.edu>
References: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C483C45@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se> <5224F4BB.8000904@alum.mit.edu> <CAOJ7v-20smCmAYG_be_4g2PwDigXKJu+x6yRkAzPXJ_YHWse-Q@mail.gmail.com> <522A27AB.1020102@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 12:08:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWA7n7jy9T7cROTZSKrKAc9jCwb=68Whqt7qvVMgCQ8yA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] BUNDLE DISCUSION Q6: Do we always mandate 2 Offer/Answers during session establishment?
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:08:50 -0000

On 6 September 2013 12:06, Paul Kyzivat <pkyzivat@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> But one of the main justifications for the 2nd O/A is the presence of
> intermediaries who depend upon this. Even if you know all about the
> application at the other end, you probably don't know about the presence of
> intermediaries that care any more than you know about intermediaries that
> force the use of ICE.

I think that you are underestimating Justin's case here.  There are no
intermediaries that you don't know about.  When you have the peering
arrangements of a large company like his employer and end-to-end
control over the application, chances are there aren't that many
intermediaries at even the IP layer you have to worry about.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email