[MMUSIC] Questions about ICE candidates with BUNDLE

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Thu, 12 November 2015 20:37 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 5E1C31B3552 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:37:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 zJFy5WZxZffq for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ob0-x232.google.com (mail-ob0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B25A1B3550 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:37:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by obbbj7 with SMTP id bj7so37793016obb.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=6+/lkomOWrfLL/k9slAXkJJOuct5QxsmZ1MvxjGtQgI=; b=FKGPJE2K/jSvIwNWLtBRuMkatpwQAqZRp+3EV8mkMEt4f54wOXf+TUvV5sKhmCoF2d fVtgAqpgZUBK00Vh7ZIk84ifxN65HxJaHahCLMjcy75EfIBU+2GkzTkQOQA06UPtDrud UFDTfWHUKQK5psYlNPOnIukbou89FlGoouOTngHf9ZQGaMgYA7IBfzLZc01Fl1Addtu1 mSrjRYyYtEIhSR7SNPGa/I4GKpL0iYDIfg5jLmaSyGIpVNCxNbjNguCmKSkVTPgAvQo/ xyTp9R33rLK7c2MkbEcV8QrKtGnzBJWbCjPFiYj5lQxOeydrTPdPst+Nga04fPtZdlPZ UZrw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=6+/lkomOWrfLL/k9slAXkJJOuct5QxsmZ1MvxjGtQgI=; b=UFpRGwFgvxTT0WpK+N7lOZQda4U9a0FbMRaRYkdTQRU+zpUDhml+3kmXP7vPdwmhK4 ivUMtCJCPHdIVpQSTRng3HzN0SN/OYmwsoqZISYSJspV1N2KRAyKOCT3BhgzIRdD/LCe 6RKXnhKFOJyaZ/73sAckMDDThxWNI2UXljTymhmXnoKWJYEzXG8L64KdLww68v+N7+hP +rX51rgqAKkNlYrGqvI150y33kghXnfDVked59cEoQ+E4LEl/Ty7hX1nuFOGyv4hFDvJ qbcNriO6qAYmwx6aBxRemrMo709BBB5SLxPrNq/HhYY7xUiTrABwdwMphq7HNiSnBh9U t1QA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnnr5mx3EyPlUElqpgW9gL1yZ9kh1g2WNNskqi+EXvb30D1UI/CFeKHj11lszr86g5SdKbG
X-Received: by 10.182.65.138 with SMTP id x10mr9965117obs.39.1447360625250; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:37:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.108.9 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:36:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:36:25 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUHutBgaPOV73-CyD_Knz+G5RFE0VX4s3+GqGV8K=B1LNA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1bb24ee8d0e05245de75f"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/aXvr2eZUsfVylGdxWoXvwgDECDg>
Subject: [MMUSIC] Questions about ICE candidates with BUNDLE
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: <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: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 20:37:07 -0000

While implementing BUNDLE, we ran into a few questions
about draft-ietf-mmusic-sdp-bundle-negotiation-23, especially section 11
and when ICE candidates are included in m-lines:


1.  It says "answerer MUST assign shared ICE candidates to each bundled
'm=' line ... in the answer".  What is the reasoning for duplicating
candidates in this way in the answer?  Clearly at this point, the offerer
understands BUNDLE and BUNDLE is negotiated, and the offerer (when using
bundle-only) doesn't include duplicate candidates, so what's value in
duplicating the candidates in the answer?  If there isn't a good reason,
I'd prefer to not duplicate them, even if that means using 'a=bundle-only'
in the answer (which is currently unspecified)

2.  If the answerer does not include any candidates in the answer and
instead trickles them later, should it trickle them N times (once for each
m-line in the BUNDLE group) or 1 time?  1 time seems much more reasonable
than N times, but if we duplicate candidates in the answer, but not
duplicate them while trickling, that's a bit inconsistent.  Yet another
reason to not duplicate in the answer :).

3. (more for editors)  Everything refers to "11.1", but 11.1 doesn't say
much.  Does it mean "11.2.1", which has more substance?

4. (more for editors) 11.2.2 and 11.2.5 are exactly the same.  Why not just
remove 11.2.5 and say 11.2.2 refers to all offers?

Thanks,
Peter