IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Comment on the ICE updated offer procedures

Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> Sun, 02 March 2014 22:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ari.keranen@ericsson.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 26DFD1A0B5D for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:22:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 IaURkVFa3L6P for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:22:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailgw1.ericsson.se (mailgw1.ericsson.se [193.180.251.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5023F1A0B5E for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 14:22:50 -0800 (PST)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-b7f5d8e000002a7b-7a-5313af362aaf
Received: from ESESSHC020.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by mailgw1.ericsson.se (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EF.F8.10875.63FA3135; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:22:46 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB205.ericsson.se ([169.254.5.210]) by ESESSHC020.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.78]) with mapi id 14.02.0387.000; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:22:46 +0100
From: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
To: "Stach, Thomas" <thomas.stach@unify.com>
Thread-Topic: Comment on the ICE updated offer procedures
Thread-Index: Ac82UynstLVpW+NhS5ORd1Q4pZhv3QACmLsA
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 22:22:44 +0000
Message-ID: <1ECDA76B-D54B-4DF2-BE1C-A826B18F28AD@ericsson.com>
References: <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE1217A537BC@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
In-Reply-To: <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE1217A537BC@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.148]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5647F6B5-9B9E-4487-ADBA-682046349A1B"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFnrPLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvja7ZeuFgg1s3zC2mLn/MYnFy5zZm ByaPJUt+Mnls73nMEsAUxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJVx9OcZloKrphX3f+5gbGC8YtTFyMkhIWAi cf/xbhYIW0ziwr31bF2MXBxCAocYJe6v/gGWEBJYzCjxe5YniM0mYC8xec1HRhBbREBHYvbM x+xdjBwczALqElcXB4GEhQUsJO5M72WCKLGU2PzwLwuEbSQx6etvMJtFQEVi6tcesFZeoJEn X3uDmEICfhITumNBKjgF/CXu3dgIVs0IdNn3U2vAJjILiEvcejKfCeJiEYmHF0+zQdiiEi8f /2OFsJUkGpc8YQX5hFlgCqPEpNbj7CAJXgFBiZMzn7BMYBSdhWTWLGR1s5DUQRRpSyxb+JoZ wtaTeNn0jh3CNpV4ffQjI4RtLTHj10E2CFtRYkr3Q/YFjByrGNlzEzNz0ssNNzECI+3glt+6 OxhPnRM5xCjNwaIkzvvhrXOQkEB6YklqdmpqQWpRfFFpTmrxIUYmDk6pBkaJWPsd9/tNdENe lqoFSZyTZLixy0NUMfWcyJEW+ydPI25sWp86/8y6xgPSq3+qem/kCvl4/yIbx8lZDdOSrs7Y XPCmO0pq9Vcr4SPxi1d0L+mImdEmKeYQlJpe/4ul5d6pLd8YSu8lhl+PuXLOV7VnvY99UBbb be0eJZ6pp8yMs+9UPQpZfkOJpTgj0VCLuag4EQCNg/61ggIAAA==
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/NUwxvteBZaGdWu9E2ryxdxKLgYY
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Comment on the ICE updated offer procedures
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: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 22:22:53 -0000

Hi Thomas,

On Mar 2, 2014, at 8:08 PM, Stach, Thomas wrote:
> the slides  for IETF 89 propose that always an updated offer shall be sent.
> You also mention the issues with that as listed in draft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updated-offer.
> This was also discussed in IETF 80.
> Draft-elwell-mmusic-ice-updated-offer acknowledges that there are middle boxes that need such updated offer to work properly.
> However, there are also cases and other types of middle boxes that break or show undesirable behavior, just because of the updated offer.
> Because of these issues, I think that always sending the updated offer should not be required.
> Instead, it should be made configurable if the updated offer is sent or not sent, possibly together with some signaling (ice-options/ice-options-required?) which behavior is to be applied.

Having this configurable and defaulting to always doing the updated offer makes sense to me. And perhaps this should be then signaled in an ice-options-optional since it should not affect whether aggressive nomination can be used or not.


Cheers,
Ari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email