Re: [MMUSIC] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-10

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 4:51 AM, Suhas Nandakumar <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> Section 4.2.2.2.3 specifies, during offer processing, that the
> implementation "SHOULD wait for [ICE] checks to complete" before sending an
> answer. Keeping in mind that these updates typically happen with the SIP
> UPDATE method, and given that RFC 3261 specifies "TUs SHOULD respond
> immediately to non-INVITE requests" (cf. RFC3261 section 17.1), I'm
> concerned about the timing implications here. We should minimally point out
> that we're explicitly telling UAs to ignore this normative statement in
> RFC3261, and make sure that we've done the analysis to ensure that we're
> not going to cause problems for the SIP state machine (I'm concerned, in
> particular, about unnecessary SIP retransmissions here).
>
> [Suhas] - I am not aware of any analysis being done. What do you suggest
> we need to do ?
>
>
I think current draft assumes that answers to session updates are note sent
until ICE nomination is complete. I do not think this is realistic,
especially when continuous nomination is used. My suggestion is to allow
offer/answer exchanges in while ICE nomination is in process. I would also
suggest that complete current list of ICE candidates should be sent in each
of those of exchanges. I have sent the suggestion regarding this in earlier
email today.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount