Re: [MMUSIC] Seriously, USE-CANDIDATE!!! in 5245bis

[Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>]

On 7/22/14 7:12 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 2014 6:11 PM, "Ari Keränen" <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  >
>  > On 7/22/14 11:06 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>  >>
>  >> On 22.07.14, 11:02, Ari Keränen wrote:
>  >>>
>  >>> Hi,
>  >>>
>  >>> On 7/21/14 4:45 PM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>  >>>>
>  >>>> In London we mentioned the option of adding a new attribute that,
> during
>  >>>> aggressive nomination, the controlling agent can use to notify its
> peer
>  >>>> that ICE processing is over and no more changes are going to be
>  >>>> attempted. This way controlled agents will no they can now release
>  >>>> resources.
>  >>>>
>  >>>> This could either be a new attribute (e.g.,
> USE-CANDIDATE-CONFIRMED) or,
>  >>>> as Justin suggested in an off-list discussion, we could have the
>  >>>> controlling agent send a second USE-CANDIDATE once aggressive
> nomination
>  >>>> converges.
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>> Did you consider using the updated offer to indicate that you're really
>  >>> done? This would require that you always send it (i.e., a slight
>  >>> modification to 5245), but that's something that has been already
>  >>> proposed to be updated for other purposes.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> The point is to have all that information without involving signalling,
>  >> as is the case with regular nomination.
>  >>
>  >> Let me ask the question the other way. Is there any reason not to do
> this?
>  >
>  >
>  > Just the usual: are the benefits higher than the added complexity.
> Here, depending how it's done, the added complexity should be fairly low
> though.
>
> The complexity of having to handle that over signalling and the need to
> implement it on every sig protocol that ever dares to use ICE is
> arguably much higher than that of an extra attribute

Actually I meant the complexity of implementing something like this, and 
why to do/not to do this (in any way).

>  > For the benefits, currently with SIP you are allowed to release the
> not selected candidate resources after 3 seconds from concluding ICE
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-8.3.1).
>
> And that is the whole point because currently with aggressive nomination
> you simply don't know exactly when ICE has concluded.

So if you assume aggressive ICE has concluded after you've got your 
first USE-CANDIDATE checks done (as the text currently says), and you 
stop doing keep-alives on all except the selected candidate pair and let 
your relayed and reflexive candidates die away. You still have some time 
to switch between the candidates since the candidates are still alive 
for at least some (tens of?) seconds. Isn't that OK?

Or did you have some other kind of resources in mind?


Cheers,
Ari