Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review
Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com> Mon, 17 December 2012 15:38 UTC
Return-Path: <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F273021F895E for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:38:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IRU-Ei8DpE5v for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:38:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:14b8:400:101::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC90A21F8946 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:38:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06CF94E6FA; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:38:20 +0200 (EET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at nomadiclab.com
Received: from gw.nomadiclab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (inside.nomadiclab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CoS0xsY-kflE; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:38:18 +0200 (EET)
Received: from tri62.nomadiclab.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by gw.nomadiclab.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B6BE24E6F8; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:38:18 +0200 (EET)
Message-ID: <50CF3C6A.6080901@nomadiclab.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 17:38:18 +0200
From: Ari Keranen <ari.keranen@nomadiclab.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>
References: <50BFBAFC.8080106@nomadiclab.com> <50C0B3AB.4010509@ericsson.com> <50CAEDAA.3080803@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <50CAEDAA.3080803@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat@tools.ietf.org, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 17 Dec 2012 15:38:22 -0000
Hi Magnus, These changes look good to me. And please add forward-reference(s) to the ICE-RTSP section where applicable. Couple of nits inline. Cheers, Ari On 12/14/12 11:13 AM, Magnus Westerlund wrote: > On 2012-12-06 16:03, Magnus Westerlund wrote: >> On 2012-12-05 22:22, Ari Keranen wrote: >>> >>> If the server has a public IP address with a single candidate >>> per media stream, component and address family, then the server >>> may be configured to not initiate connectivity checks. >>> >>> This is the "ICE-RTSP", right? Maybe one (small) subsection defining >>> this "feature" would make sense. Now it's a bit trickled around in this >>> section, sec 4.8.1, 5.4, etc. For someone not familiar with ICE-RTSP, it >>> looks like you're talking about ICE lite. >> >> Yes, this is definitely ICE-RTSP. It is still doing triggered checks. > > However, I think you might have misinterpreted what ICE-RTSP really is. > It is the full usage of ICE as defined by this specification. The high > reachability configuration of the RTSP server is a variant of the normal > ICE-RTSP behavior. > > I have tried to clarify this and created a special section for > discussing the differences, this include the text in the old 4.8. > 5. ICE-RTSP > > This Section discusses differences to the regular ICE usage defined > in [RFC5245]. The basic for the modifications in the general > procedures are in the clearer client/server roles that RTSP provides > and how the RTSP Session establishment signalling occurs within RTSP > compared to SIP/SDP Offer/Answer. > > 5.1. ICE Features Not Required > > A number of ICE signalling features are not needed with RTSP and are > discussed below. > > 5.1.1. ICE-Lite > > The ICE-Lite attribute shall not be used in the context of RTSP. The > ICE specification describes two implementations of ICE: Full and > Lite, where hosts that are not behind a NAT are allowed to implement > only Lite. For RTSP, the Lite implementation is insufficient because > it does not cause the media server to send a connectivity check, > which is used to protect against making the RTSP server a denial of > service tool. > > 5.1.2. ICE-Mismatch > > The ice-mismatch parameter indicates that the offer arrived with a > default destination for a media component that didn't have a > corresponding candidate attribute. This is not needed for RTSP as > the ICE based lower layer transport specification either is supported > or another alternative transport is used. This is always explicitly > indicated in the SETUP request and response. > > 5.1.3. ICE Remote Candidate Transport Header Parameter > > The Remote candidate attribute is not needed for RTSP for the > following reasons. Each SETUP results in an independent ICE > processing chain which either fails or results in promoting a single > candidate pair to usage. If a new SETUP request for the same media > is sent, this needs to use a new username fragment and password to > avoid any race conditions or uncertainty about which round of > processing the STUN requests relate to. > > 5.2. High-Reachability Configuration > > ICE-RTSP contains one variant for RTSP Servers that are not behind > NATs, i.e. are highly reachable by the clients. Similar to ICE-Lite > this allows for some reductions in the servers burden. However, due > to the need to still verify that the client is actually present where > it claims the server must also initiate binding requests and await > binding responses. The reduction for the high-reachability > configuration of ICE-RTSP is that they don't need to initiate its own > checks, and instead rely on triggered checks for verification. This > also removes a denial of service threat where a RTSP SETUP request > will trigger large amount of STUN connectivity checks towards > provided candidate addresses. > > > >>> >>> 5.12. Re-SETUP >>> >>> If the client decides to change any parameters related to the media >>> stream setup >>> >>> Could clarify (again) here that we talk about ICE parameters. >> >> Yes, definitely. I actually had to think a long time if this was only >> ICE parameters or also RTSP parameters. But, it is so unnecessary to >> restart ICE for most RTSP parameter changes. > > When looking at this again, I though it unclear enough that I have > attempted a bit of rewording. I propose the section should read like this: > > 6.12. Re-SETUP > > A client that decides to change any parameters related to the media > stream setup it will send a new SETUP request. In this new SETUP (remove "it") > request the client MAY include a new different username fragment and > password to use in the ICE processing. New username and password > SHALL cause the ICE processing to start from the beginning again, > i.e. an ICE restart (Section 9.1.1.1 of [RFC5245]). The client SHALL > in case of ICE restart gather candidates and include the candidates > in the transport specification for D-ICE. > > ICE restarts may be triggered due to changes of clients or servers > attachment to the network, i.e. changes to the media streams > destination or source address or port. Most RTSP parameter changes > would not require an ICE restart, instead existing mechanisms in RTSP > for indicating from where in the RTP stream they apply should be > used. These include performing a pause prior to the parameter change > and then resume or if server supports in do SETUP during PLAY state, "in do SETUP" ? > and thus use RTP-Info header (Section 18.43 of > [I-D.ietf-mmusic-rfc2326bis]) to indicate from where in the media > stream the change apply. > > The server SHALL support SETUP requests in PLAY state, as long as the > SETUP changes only the ICE parameters, which are: ICE-Password, ICE- > ufrag and the content of ICE candidates. > > If the RTSP session is in playing state at the time of sending the > SETUP request requiring ICE restart, then the ICE connectivity checks > SHALL use Regular nomination. Any ongoing media delivery continues > on the previously nominated candidate pairs until the new pairs have > been nominated for the individual candidate. Once the nomination of > the new candidate pair has completed, all unused candidates may be > released.
- [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review Ari Keranen
- Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review Ari Keranen
- Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review Ari Keranen
- Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review Ari Keranen
- Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review Magnus Westerlund
- Re: [MMUSIC] draft-ietf-mmusic-rtsp-nat-14 review Ari Keranen