Re: [MMUSIC] Merging ICE aggressive and regular nomination (was Re: [tram] Comment on draft-williams-peer-redirect-01: might it not converge?)

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 30 July 2014 21:57 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 EEDBC1A0145 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:57:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 7wy0kxCaLgn5 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:57:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x22b.google.com (mail-we0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48A3E1A0119 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:57:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id p10so1876301wes.30 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:57:01 -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=8yRP3Td/EVxSSLTOMatsp+xhtoHv97FXMrfFtSGwh10=; b=QlB5e9u6Uhh6/vy6Axs20M3HXlHxsN6Tj5EDlezsVYTtGL0Y3nlKcGH8CpjPwVRCz2 15VtKG1Yvhi33bzD98ZuFpGCwGh+mHUAjW42eH5qhg3JGJzAcV5Q6BxlJ9W8fpzGDCvd cS8SkpCkGdtQUXcUIkSXzp8+xJRkt4L97hIia27BzJf1al7EmldIV0fW1TIPsHp7OQ1V 8lAW3tPHMLbFiDoazlZ8/tjIaIzAQ05SDqkPGUi7aIqUKVdU8/lDnLFGNX+KbZeHFNJ5 dWyJOSKBtcNSDrMeaoKh4RRwWW/zaaBvrAHQi5d2sJKn4ffwwicPxG+syT6UwWdr6fzg dZgg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.92.38 with SMTP id cj6mr10030058wib.64.1406757421409; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.169.10 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:57:01 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-2K-2ZCep0O077X2Xnx_HefQRxCzWUXKRRPcxiff_gSxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0DA61D09-6491-4DA4-8B6F-CFED70584A76@vidyo.com> <CAOJ7v-1jLK7dWDkWHKwHJ6qXicZWDNrAqOtw9R=6zAcWzkh5+g@mail.gmail.com> <53D796E5.9040009@jive.com> <2AF26344-DF5D-493C-96BC-80AD7DF35444@vidyo.com> <CAOJ7v-0HEjQQ+j0cAVc5r3Y4LxaoGF7EN2twGG6vTuMmEeragQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D2E9E91-B0B7-4081-B65B-EDAEC4D23A97@vidyo.com> <CABkgnnXHj+Q8UQQ6ULeSaPSkvmv7AAkv=zcZQ8pQB4A6dGMVdg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2K-2ZCep0O077X2Xnx_HefQRxCzWUXKRRPcxiff_gSxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 14:57:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnW8ckz2BM4cSOUHPgVv=CnXm6+YStC0KTakLeLX77=Z+A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/Hr9ZL8g31L0qt5y_7UNKKDZO3FQ
Cc: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Merging ICE aggressive and regular nomination (was Re: [tram] Comment on draft-williams-peer-redirect-01: might it not converge?)
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: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 21:57:05 -0000

On 30 July 2014 14:04, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
> I don't follow the logic here. If a pair is on the valid list (I assume that
> is what Jonathan means by Confirmed), you have received a check response.

If you are sending, this isn't an issue.  It's the receiver that needs
to concern itself with having to receive packets on any one of up to
100 candidate pairs.  It will have seen a check on the pair
previously, but it might not have generated a check itself yet.  This
can happen when trickling.