Re: [MMUSIC] Please Read and Comment: Re: ICE SDP/JSEP peace accords

I think Adam’s Pr on this topic is reasonable way forward.

Thanks
Suhas

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:50 AM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 9:05 AM Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/22/19 4:42 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>>
>> On 1/22/19 3:40 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:36 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/22/19 3:33 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:25 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1/22/19 3:15 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>>> > The issue is the offer generated when ICE restart is not initiated
>>>> and
>>>> > TCP candidate is currently nominated. TCP candidate is the only
>>>> > candidate which is present in both offer and answer. It is also the
>>>> > default candidate. No UDP candidate will be added it any point during
>>>> > the offer/answer exchange.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is what I tried to indicate with the use of an italicized "always"
>>>> in my previous reply.
>>>>
>>>> EVEN IF it is generating an offer when ICE restart is initiated and the
>>>> TCP candidate is nominated, Chrome will still always (always, always)
>>>> generate an SDP that includes a UDP candidate and use that candidate's
>>>> value in the m=/o= lines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Unless I am mistaken, if ICE restart is not initiated, only the
>>> nominated candidate must be included. No other candidates must be present.
>>> If Chrome does not follow this, then it is most likely not complaint with
>>> either ICE or JSEP specifications.
>>>
>>>
>>> Based on the conversation I had with their engineers, that seems to be
>>> the case.
>>>
>>
>> Based on RFC 5245 section 9.1.2.2 (
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-9.1.2.2) this is wrong:
>>
>> The agent MUST include candidate attributes for candidates matching the
>> default destination for each component of the media stream, and MUST NOT
>> include any other candidates.
>>
>>
>> I'm not disagreeing.
>>
>>
>> So where does this leave us ?
>>
>>
> I think JSEP sections 5.1.2 (
> https://tools.ietf..org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-25#section-5.1.2
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-25#section-5.1.2>)
> and potentially 5.2.2 (
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-25#section-5.2.2)
> would need to be updated to be consistent with each other and mmusic drafts.
>
> There is currently a discussion on RTCWEB of pull request
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/862/files which attempts to fix
> this.
>
> Regards,
> _____________
>
> Roman Shpount
> _______________________________________________
> mmusic mailing list
> mmusic@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>