Re: [MMUSIC] ICE Dual Stack Fairness (was: Milestones changed for mmusic WG)

"Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" <> Thu, 23 October 2014 07:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AA8A1A88FF for <>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:54:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TifuZJP3lOH6 for <>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACD181A88F8 for <>; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 00:53:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=4407; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1414050816; x=1415260416; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=xMBjiGvHU/p3mCmtEpL585cQh47cmkMTqtJDbmwZjtE=; b=Bfc4HUPyvsZ8wQfn6AKZh3R+HxV8Ur+Uc0nv3gAvdXT5aREoNwMf4Nzx G+EocM/G8MTPbdb8HzE0Mijt8Q6ifVUKm+KLssaHwvYjWLFeO5288XBmW uQOnlI78bWfqqL5A96GYT4QZFQlSKHBjUFBGSEUPB0gYa/I4PSkHgGU8A s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.04,774,1406592000"; d="scan'208,217";a="365695653"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 23 Oct 2014 07:53:35 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s9N7rYGE010452 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:53:34 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Thu, 23 Oct 2014 02:53:34 -0500
From: "Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" <>
To: Simon Perreault <>
Thread-Topic: [MMUSIC] ICE Dual Stack Fairness (was: Milestones changed for mmusic WG)
Thread-Index: AQHP7T7TX2WMQgQKTUq1fTtTVtC2V5w9pjaA
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:53:33 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_AFAC204C644049AD95E6B49F2F5C5043ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: mmusic <>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE Dual Stack Fairness (was: Milestones changed for mmusic WG)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2014 07:54:19 -0000

On 21 Oct 2014, at 16:53, Simon Perreault <<>> wrote:

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) <<>> wrote:
We submitted a new draft that we believe cover the new milestone.

I just read this for the first time. Forgive me if this has been discussed before... As an implementer I would prefer if there was "the one true" algorithm that I can go and implement and not have to think. Having an example algorithm in an appendix makes me uneasy. If the algorithm is not contentious, why not make it normative?

This have been briefly discussed. Some ICE implementations already do similar tricks to solve this problem. The main purpose of the draft is to make implementers aware that their might be a problem and hint that there is a solution they can use.

That said, I completely agree that the algorithm should be normative.

The algorithm in the draft already has wording in there to allow for implementation specific modifications. And should be able to handle any old ICE implementations without braking anything.

Anyone with objections regarding making the proposed algorithm normative in the draft?