Re: [MMUSIC] ICE Dual Stack Fairness

"Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" <palmarti@cisco.com> Mon, 03 November 2014 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <palmarti@cisco.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 AABBA1A011F for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 04:45:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.095 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_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.594, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 HezOachs6zDN for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 04:45:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49F521A0119 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 04:45:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2716; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1415018705; x=1416228305; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=01hKIyIVHABmiTrIsYYtW8Q3DCWwXmLYo0hB3xCV3G4=; b=hXzDHJ9kc6PgLOxedH9rlCx7qRLKZltJ3MzFeTtkM//8LWAv1huR+7JC 0OeeLweScW1C71qoSlzH3+YJe/56C0UX8XO8kG/mYU81OkJB4FOgEBdI5 YSsy53IZTbP+6QcCCfAFgli2RdYPqQ23TauZhwfIXobaxvq7jsbB8mFzM U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AiAIACF4V1StJA2B/2dsb2JhbABcgw5UWATOCIdHAgICgSUWAQEBAQF9hAIBAQEDAXkFCwIBCBgnBzIUEQIEDgUJEogdCQ3HLgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEZkF0zB4MtgR4Fj3uCH4RPhxiBMYZ/jiCDeGwBgUeBAwEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,307,1413244800"; d="scan'208";a="369105464"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Nov 2014 12:45:04 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com [173.37.183.76]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id sA3Cj4si005483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 3 Nov 2014 12:45:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.134]) by xhc-rcd-x02.cisco.com ([173.37.183.76]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Mon, 3 Nov 2014 06:45:04 -0600
From: "Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" <palmarti@cisco.com>
To: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] ICE Dual Stack Fairness
Thread-Index: AQHP7wrHz5lJHIroHEqdhLPo9EyYeZxPTniA
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 12:45:03 +0000
Message-ID: <36F68831-D667-443B-A8DD-C508BD109D86@cisco.com>
References: <20141017222826.30724.11722.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <761C04CA-32BA-4BF9-87DE-A8EFED61105C@cisco.com> <CANO7kWAMAMM3N0D2YaU7bGin4W-v06PA+1mUnvwM_XGbC5Lzsg@mail.gmail.com> <AFAC204C-6440-49AD-95E6-B49F2F5C5043@cisco.com> <54497730.6070502@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <54497730.6070502@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.61.221.156]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <FD8FF0F64F70B3428B711F76D8E05524@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/7e_mAZA2-YX-y13CSDVv3A3v-eY
Cc: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE Dual Stack Fairness
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: <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: Mon, 03 Nov 2014 12:45:07 -0000

> On 23 Oct 2014, at 23:46, Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> On 10/23/14 10:53 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote:
>> 
>> On 21 Oct 2014, at 16:53, Simon Perreault <sperreault@jive.com
>> <mailto:sperreault@jive.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti)
>>> <palmarti@cisco.com <mailto:palmarti@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>    We submitted a new draft that we believe cover the new milestone.
>>> 
>>>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness-00
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I just read this for the first time. Forgive me if this has been
>>> discussed before... As an implementer I would prefer if there was "the
>>> one true" algorithm that I can go and implement and not have to think.
>>> Having an example algorithm in an appendix makes me uneasy. If the
>>> algorithm is not contentious, why not make it normative?
>>> 
>> 
>> This have been briefly discussed. Some ICE implementations already do
>> similar tricks to solve this problem. The main purpose of the draft is
>> to make implementers aware that their might be a problem and hint that
>> there is a solution they can use.
>> 
>> That said, I completely agree that the algorithm should be normative.
>> 
>> The algorithm in the draft already has wording in there to allow for
>> implementation specific modifications. And should be able to handle any
>> old ICE implementations without braking anything.
>> 
>> Anyone with objections regarding making the proposed algorithm normative
>> in the draft?
> 
> We discussed this topic at #89 IETF:
> http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/89/minutes/minutes-89-mmusic#h.caj5s2i38ck0
> 
Thanks for the pointer. MMUSIC minutes are very detailed and helpful. 

> The algorithm as such is not, to best of my knowledge, contentious, but making it something mandatory to follow was considered a bad idea.
> 
Agree, definitely not mandatory. 

Wish I was clever enough to build a mathematical prof of the correctness of the algorithm. 

> As individual, I think one (RFC 2119) MAY/OPTIONAL default algorithm would make sense, but having it as MUST would not be a good idea.
> 

I would like it stronger than MAY. Something like: “Implementations SHOULD use the algorithm in Section xxx, but MAY user their own following the guidelines in Section yyy to ensure interoperability” 

I will rewrite the draft to ensure the guidelines for not breaking interoperability stands out more clearly, and move the algorithm from appendix into main. 


Thanks for input.

.-.
Pål-Erik

> 
> Cheers,
> Ari