[MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-16 - Part II
Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 05 March 2018 10:19 UTC
Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 8F4FC12741D for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 02:19:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.321
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.321 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
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 nypWB5nTnoMC for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 02:19:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sessmg23.ericsson.net (sessmg23.ericsson.net [193.180.251.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 231A31241FC for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 02:19:40 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1520245179; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=nhCGw9Avx8Hljp2nI7X0dLPV6LtWln7TEa1gsgO0PW4=; b=UJCqHhIRshupBNHJVT8SnLkmDEk28XGI4t3YMYd3i9LDXk3ijvlfalqyC74Z00YV o/eNwO9Q7RV0IxhwKVnBN0isc4HFS2buti4Oy8SX2+TLwVQYHiptqcTd/fIrZnd6 /4/510pH+6JduWVdPF7a6XwbmMPOUZ3L2R5kr8Dj40U=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-87c029c000005540-43-5a9d19bbe811
Received: from ESESSHC006.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.36]) by sessmg23.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 54.A4.21824.BB91D9A5; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:19:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ESESSMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.82]) by ESESSHC006.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.36]) with mapi id 14.03.0352.000; Mon, 5 Mar 2018 11:18:41 +0100
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-16 - Part II
Thread-Index: AQHTtGtVGKqB9hfdvEWgyiW8njfNRA==
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 10:18:41 +0000
Message-ID: <D6C2E931.2C088%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.7.170905
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.146]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <66ECFF5FA6C7664FB9757A9AB9D17822@ericsson.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFvrILMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2K7iu5uyblRBn13pSymLn/M4sDosWTJ T6YAxigum5TUnMyy1CJ9uwSujIdX37MUTJGsWHt9BWsD42nhLkZODgkBE4nus5/Yuhi5OIQE DjNKvPi9hBnCWcQoMe1lN1MXIwcHm4CFRPc/bZAGEQF1ia97e5hBbGEBe4nuTZ2MEHEXidsb X4CViwjoSezuSwEJswioSFw+PwGshFfAWmJKyzIwm1FATOL7qTVMIDazgLjErSfzmSDuEZBY suc8M4QtKvHy8T9WEFsUaOSGE7fZIeJKEj82XGKB6DWQeH9uPjOEbS1xsnsmG4StLbFs4Wtm iL2CEidnPmGZwCgyC8m6WUjaZyFpn4WkfRaS9gWMrKsYRYtTi4tz042M9VKLMpOLi/Pz9PJS SzYxAiPi4JbfujsYV792PMQowMGoxMNbJz43Sog1say4MvcQowQHs5IIrxQwnoR4UxIrq1KL 8uOLSnNSiw8xSnOwKInznvTkjRISSE8sSc1OTS1ILYLJMnFwSjUwGl/8OyFg0bQt4WszvJ8x /nnKcuhDwYEzEuVTzyv3CviumnBoVfV6TbFHrSu3iy1uXntjdcFT/qSPN2yVPsvNC+X03fR1 26KKAg+WGeXLv2jP8RHZPP/kWyGh8uSV+3f+5tA9WLxFfl/T84mrr0jyPohwivw9fcH7S3HH NtSt4+7YZ976cX1ox1olluKMREMt5qLiRAA2UVSqhAIAAA==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/YWmeKNdELz-oN4gct6zgfunOOPg>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-16 - Part II
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 05 Mar 2018 10:19:42 -0000
Hi, Some more comments/questions: Q0: Section 4.1.4 talks about performing connectivity checks. I don¹t think it should talk about role conflicts (or, the section should be renamed to ŒRole conflicts¹). Unless I¹ve missed something, the only SDP-specific thing about connectivity checks is how/if inactive/sendonly/recvonly/sendrecv impacts it. For keepalives the draft says it doesn¹t, but I can¹t find any text about connectivity checks in general. Q0.1: Section 4.2.4.1.1. talks about multiple nominated pair for a given component. Again, that only happens with aggressive nomination, and should be removed from this draft. Q1: Section 6 describes keepalives. I don¹t think the following sentence belongs to the section: "An agent can determine that its peer supports ICE by the presence of a=candidate attributes for each media session.² How agents determine support is described elsewhere. Q2: Section 7.1 and 7.2 is about media handling. The handling of mismatch between selected pair and default pair should be described elsewhere. What does the following mean? "Furthermore, in very unusual cases, the default candidates in the updated offer/answer will not be a match.² Q3: Section 8 says: "Note that ICE is not intended for NAT traversal for SIP, which is assumed to be provided via another mechanism [RFC5626].² I suggest to say ³e.g., using the mechanism defined in [RFC5626].² Q4: In section 8, doesn¹t the second paragraph (about forking) belong in Section 8.3? Q5: In section 8.1, what does the following mean? "These checks can take time to complete, and as such, the selection of messages to use with offers and answers can affect perceived user latency.² Are you referring to the SIP methods for carrying offers/answers? Q6: In section 8.2, why is the support of the option tags and feature tags SHOULD, instead of MUST? Q7: In section 8.3, I think it should be described that, when forking occurs, ICE processing is done independently on each fork. Q8: In section 8.3, the text says: "Without ICE, when a call forks and the caller receives multiple incoming media streams, it cannot determine which media stream corresponds to which callee. With ICE, this problem is resolved. The connectivity checks which occur prior to transmission of media carry username fragments, which in turn are correlated to a specific callee." First, you need to describe HOW to determine which media stream corresponds to which callee. There are no username fragments etc in the media packets. Are you talking about comparing the source addresses of STUN connectivity checks and media packets, or? Second, while each peer will you have different username fragments, you need to describe whether the caller can use the same on each fork. Q9: Is there something SIP/SDP specific in section 10? If not, I think we can remove the section. Q10: In sections 11 and 12, I think nowadays the contact for new attributes etc shall be IESG. Regards, Christer
- [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sd… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-si… Suhas Nandakumar