IETF Logo Mail Archive

[MMUSIC] Comment on the ICE updated offer procedures

"Stach, Thomas" <thomas.stach@unify.com> Sun, 02 March 2014 20:08 UTC

Return-Path: <thomas.stach@unify.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 566681A0AA2 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:08:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.146
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547] 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 olme28lc384W for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:08:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx12.unify.com (mx12.unify.com [62.134.46.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3DD81A0AA1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 12:08:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net (unknown [172.29.42.235]) by mx12.unify.com (Server) with ESMTP id 393AF23F0430; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 21:08:25 +0100 (CET)
Received: from MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net ([169.254.1.208]) by MCHP02HTC.global-ad.net ([172.29.42.235]) with mapi id 14.03.0174.001; Sun, 2 Mar 2014 21:08:25 +0100
From: "Stach, Thomas" <thomas.stach@unify.com>
To: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Thread-Topic: Comment on the ICE updated offer procedures
Thread-Index: Ac82UynstLVpW+NhS5ORd1Q4pZhv3Q==
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 20:08:23 +0000
Message-ID: <F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE1217A537BC@MCHP04MSX.global-ad.net>
Accept-Language: de-AT, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [172.29.42.225]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_F81CEE99482EFE438DAE2A652361EE1217A537BCMCHP04MSXglobal_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/YJRg2GFW9098F80bGDG7tuqY3vc
Cc: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: [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 20:08:30 -0000

Ari,

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.

Regards
Thomas

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email