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 22:28 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 42B071A0295 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:28:25 -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 WFmxaCBNdEyt for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 942581A0111 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id hi2so8341836wib.4 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:28:21 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oo4MhiKCXSm44PE5/zxL2IuwFnS93EIzymH8vH+kY4o=; b=yBxZ23BQdoNSXakPd0oWRnhUfsPQjJtECojQG+9mYWu1IKAc6YicAJd6AelAo9Vdwu gdadBIW0bB2W5lgmqzxchWssaqUIrKSggir0a/G0abJbqN4u+WCdyhcbzCSa1v/NmYoS h/PvQ8AgtbUSt/SZPQf1CrjkSf7DKYlAU+gwLF+pLeNEw8h8TM9GDJYHeJS4MDHe1ZpR X02VMjKM1rKxpgXcxglczi0iadLqXP7huJOGMaL6sUxBPWK36zfCGXMcc6NpPjqV4KA+ MC7tNomkyyQv9+D40BszYVZvxL7G93zVhLtICZgVXEAtrG6IEjIZIwxhkU8ygYW7frnp Zvlw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.73.6 with SMTP id h6mr9901090wiv.65.1406759301169; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.169.10 with HTTP; Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:28:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <48776423-8594-4133-BD23-3EA561EC2A9D@vidyo.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> <CAOJ7v-1HzGoUNXjvXph0-8WfpM6-vFJ+yDWhVw1_1grfrVD1Vw@mail.gmail.com> <B2794643-ADB5-4B66-98DC-841990C85437@vidyo.com> <CAOJ7v-2O3TwNcsKqp48PjDRu+Yu_+jEurecbO2GctD4Hsuu+NA@mail.gmail.com> <48776423-8594-4133-BD23-3EA561EC2A9D@vidyo.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 15:28:21 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXHYZ-L1LGhFnzFyV00xkgafuX7EOUSt6LCaRg=iv0VSQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/UMKH9xUtiePe4RUqOFtEyGxK5R4
Cc: 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 22:28:25 -0000

On 30 July 2014 15:20, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> wrote:
>
> I don’t think you want a rule of “most recently received USE-CANDIDATE” to
> determine the selected pair.  Checks will race each other, especially when
> the paths’ RTTs are very different.
>
> In my model, there is only ever one USE-CANDIDATE sent per component — i.e.,
> it works like pure regular nomination, except for the “early media”.

If the controlled peer really does use this as a signal that it's safe
to close out other candidates, then you really do have to have just
the one instance.  Is attaching that semantic safe?  I assume that we
would have to signal in both directions that this new meaning is
acceptable first.  (a=ice-options again)