[MMUSIC] updated ICE spec submitted
Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com> Wed, 29 March 2006 16:57 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOdzG-00053w-Rx; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:57:38 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOdzF-00053r-K1 for mmusic@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:57:37 -0500
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FOdzE-0006Cl-Ar for mmusic@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:57:37 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com ([64.102.124.13]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Mar 2006 11:57:37 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.03,144,1141621200"; d="scan'208"; a="85252528:sNHT31277556"
Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k2TGvaVU022421 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:57:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.21]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:57:35 -0500
Received: from [192.168.1.101] ([10.86.240.92]) by xfe-rtp-202.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:57:35 -0500
Message-ID: <442ABC7F.8050005@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 11:57:35 -0500
From: Jonathan Rosenberg <jdrosen@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: IETF MMUSIC WG <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Mar 2006 16:57:35.0667 (UTC) FILETIME=[E0DCF030:01C65351]
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c
Subject: [MMUSIC] updated ICE spec submitted
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org
I've just submitted an update to the ICE spec based on changes agreed to during the meeting, and based on several private comments and questions I've received since the last revision. Until the draft appears in the archives, you can pick it up at: http://www.jdrosen.net/papers/draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-08.txt The changes are: * specified that retransmit interval for provisional response when not using PRACK is same as in rfc3262 * defined ice-pwd as either a session or media level attribute * fixed text on jitter adaptation - talks about adapting buffers on changes in source or destination address. Specfies that for audio codecs which support marker bit for talkspurt indication, then set the bit when a sender changes candidates for a media stream * changed MAPPED-ADDRESS to XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS everywhere, and explicitly state that ICE implementations have to be compliant to rfc3489bis, not just rfc3489, thus causing exclusive use of XOR-MAPPED-ADDRESS. * added section on Receiving media, and put some text in there on not doing SSRC collision when there is a change in source IP address for the same SSRC. Also added words in there about discarding media until candidate pair enters Send-Valid. * clarified that, if an ICE implementation communicates with one that doesnt support ICE, its supposed to still use symmetric RTP and do RTP keepalives of some sort (previous text said it had to follow the guidelines in Section 7.13, which actually only apply to ICE implmenetations) * clarified that padding is not needed in base64 encoding, and why * added picture explaining the use case for keeping a redundant transport address from a different interface (same picture I presented during the wg meeting) * for peer derived candidates, the IP address and port of the connectivity check where compared against all existing candidates, and if it wasnt a match, its considered a new candidate. What if its a match to another candidate? This happens commonly, actually, when a connectivity check is made between candidate pairs where one side is a local transport address and that agent is behind an endpoint independent binding NAT. Previously, the spec said nothing about this case. Now, it says that this connectivity check serves to validate the other candidate pair. This has the effect of speeding up convergence. * updated IAB considerations section based on draft changes over last few revisions I believe this document is now ready for WGLC. Thanks, Jonathan R. -- Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D. 600 Lanidex Plaza Cisco Fellow Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711 Cisco Systems jdrosen@cisco.com FAX: (973) 952-5050 http://www.jdrosen.net PHONE: (973) 952-5000 http://www.cisco.com _______________________________________________ mmusic mailing list mmusic@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
- [MMUSIC] updated ICE spec submitted Jonathan Rosenberg