Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-01

Rajmohan Banavi <rajmohanbanavi@gmail.com> Fri, 16 January 2015 08:09 UTC

Return-Path: <rajmohanbanavi@gmail.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 B1B171AC3AA for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:09:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 UVSaiOoruqTA for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22e.google.com (mail-ig0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22e]) (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 909061ABD3F for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:09:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id hn15so2247563igb.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:09:23 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=pXQyfHdWBqLxxOdfA7dcuksSqWQEyyYsYM3OOGSACVQ=; b=n5In10YhXzIvm4nBkcMjcOoJcxh2JqDxOjCau2d2+CwZM/0Bwz/PLX98KREWSH/XLi 0QdMB8s/yfyN3DCPD9MXP6ZaxMiVdxnm9MSa/mL205XEdcRrjcqfEvA/5uKiSY5galXx L0SInlXUg1s7H4ftYb74cn5tpT/cweR8/3pPbX21EZco4ypgSX1oVW5/+Xu2aN3PIgsL rSJcLHkqofn7Ul3cU1UvOHjZOA1l+CkqP0T+CgoP3wrcGptkE7CAHUQsLDRGDriiTjN6 PQRevtWYFxh63DwLFPdRTF47yraNRbDnwmlbXgPanlvLCZyGnak50R8vNphLuh18SIzU u3YA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.79.202 with SMTP id l10mr2241856igx.24.1421395763746; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:09:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.141.195 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 00:09:23 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJWm+fGZtZDyQ1bDiSrvdnez7_hJh28d6r5nW+uORrnJu6018Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJWm+fGZtZDyQ1bDiSrvdnez7_hJh28d6r5nW+uORrnJu6018Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:39:23 +0530
Message-ID: <CAJWm+fGQwDX8fYrT+V6d-HZuGmqjUaCcr-zMahptpHpNkCVmbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Rajmohan Banavi <rajmohanbanavi@gmail.com>
To: mmusic@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122aaee955dd6050cc07dc6
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/h8JM5kC2-YHAM6PrHZEPJzA0QrE>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-01
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: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 08:09:27 -0000

I just saw that a new version of the trickle ice draft
- draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-02.txt is out. Have my earlier comments
below on the previous draft been taken care of?

Thanks,
Rajmohan

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Rajmohan Banavi <rajmohanbanavi@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Comments on draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-01
>
>
>    - "Sec 4 Determining Support for Trickle ICE" - "According to
>    [RFC5245] every time an agent supporting trickle ICE generates an offer or
>    an answer,".
>
> Need to be reworded as RFC 5245 has no idea of trickle
>
> "According to [RFC5245] every time an agent supporting an extension
> generates an offer or answer, it must include an identification token in
> the ice-options attribute. Accordingly, an agent supporting trickle ICE
> must include the "trickle" token in the ice-options attribute."
>
>
>    - Trivial typo in sec 1 Introduction.  "gathering, candidates" --->
>     "gathering candidates".
>
>
>
>    -  Sec 5 Paragraph 5: Fallback must be to Half Trickle rather than
>    vanilla ICE
>
> Prior to actually sending an initial offer, agents MAY verify if the
> remote party supports trickle ICE, where such mechanisms actually
>
> exist.  If absence of such support is confirmed agents MUST fall back
>
> to using vanilla ICE or abandon the entire session.
>
> If it is not possible to determine if the remote party support trickle
> ice, then the agent must make use of Half Trickle mechanism described in
> sec 4.1.
>
>
>    - Sec 8.1 "Check List and Timer State Updates" - there is something
>    wrong here in this paragraph. Why would a vanilla ICE agent set the state
>    of a check list to Failed if the pairs in the check list are in succeeded
>    state (bullet 1)? Further, it says that "if the following two conditions
>    are satisfied". Is it either one of the two conditions? Good idea to
>    provide a reference to RFC 5245 (sec 7.1.3.3), since we are describing the
>    operation of vanilla ICE.
>
>
>
>    - Trivial type. Sec 9.3 - "Announcing End of Candidates". Duplication
>    of sentence
>
>
>
>    - During implementation, one of the issues that surfaced was regarding
>    the check list timer. RFC 5245 Sec 5.8 "Scheduling Checks" mentions that if
>    there is no such pair, "Terminate the timer for that check list". This is
>    obviously not going to work with trickled ice candidates as the candidate
>    pairs list will keep filling up incrementally. So for trickled ice, the
>    conditions for stopping of the check list timer must be changed. Probably
>    the checklist timer must not be stopped until the checklist moves to
>    completed or Failed state.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Rajmohan
>
>