Re: [MMUSIC] Please Read and Comment: Re: ICE SDP/JSEP peace accords

Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com> Fri, 25 January 2019 23:22 UTC

Return-Path: <suhasietf@gmail.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 4ECD51288BD for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:22:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 N5ePM9VEG4gk for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:22:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com (mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e2b]) (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 BF08B12872C for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:22:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe2b.google.com with SMTP id t17so6667024vsc.8 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:22:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=UGGVmvbAkiK/1EdCKuTt4Jyyji5a0LQDGV2ENGFUlpU=; b=Jq6IBPhyx2/bo7hVkr0A1vmqY22awvNMII+0XjLVziLDYS2nVq1c1MSNKTNNi+B2T4 4UCLyWmRqeCM5DmMOX1iXpJOTvXTISU/+qpduglB2Hnd4wyKa+gN1TU3o9QsbujaqjcV gjb0xUhrs27f3kh+1GApg8sOZokeE8kWhpoDIKukDXI0mTPOF61AmasB8Zvn+jGH0r+F McuvsUeH3gRZeB/3DBxFXAreBpOBrwiGPPBY2x03/QD/iaEnspnGFQ0J9vQ4WvRHvm6k HkkzXmIUzBvEv6ZWSfsfVN6DAD2FfZlcaTc+Oq78YhwwFeIuO1vzOuNwXCDnpr0X8goq zvjQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=UGGVmvbAkiK/1EdCKuTt4Jyyji5a0LQDGV2ENGFUlpU=; b=bBoOQPH9eq4bD3MUnyN5dbFaUhpY4K0l2wtqQ3lB8Sueyrdu5M995+rcxvjJnBJJFx WAasiTTYRl3b6ANk1mGdINr05pqo2ium1X6xFsdxaz/luFwJmPED5yopHNrP6JS+xvi1 oKxG0Rg4Gc/CqZ31uTlAwrMnwrv6FYFuiRlE97MGRzmjlqRHR188Yp6/OC1iPInYLHFB 7T3EvIR9zQvknegFiP1O0nK8Jq/wpmp6x6Qec9KDHLDP0PQSKJHAPy1iRSitUi7IR8Lt F/ESJuHivapX2RPb8y1VWCjokQLPrAes8prnha+8A7opinlt5DkUEyTnAxi/jrlSwCZj 49KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukde7AaHeiMIAc03UoAcKNceerqaRYREnPIEIK92rsaAEztlG102 35Qa0OVI3oFpqRvhe7aaleAGPKaZ2SBTOvsw1Zw=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6E/WdRNi7J3uJ3CSvXDnAHeYC48QdCCDc20Ms8Z0f7shJ3d0epBymR7WaprP41dQMEMSlYmcDnuEE6gq0HGgY=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:cd84:: with SMTP id r4mr4854105vsl.26.1548458557778; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:22:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0454609c-ce69-80d4-93d8-f89bc8ba897e@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxu1bPDU_snQ=H7RwVgPKW_hKJY1Nj7g82vTpJ+gorPrYQ@mail.gmail.com> <f279e997-0236-b78c-e555-5189d9818ef2@nostrum.com> <9B6124BE-E369-4327-B759-77DB0ED8A484@ericsson.com> <6f42b5c5-72f0-8d6a-c68d-d19da7d94353@cisco.com> <HE1PR07MB3161189A6405D403F433F17293980@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAD5OKxvNYnARbw5yvSHCeQUiSMRxQdMj9h5zUeXj+o3Nd8Kh-g@mail.gmail.com> <3e17ec5d-e6b2-5d38-e206-2ed7b8b9c690@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxtzxOfE9O-G5tQ1C_sg8LHQBxpNATJi_ee-UVcp0gdb2w@mail.gmail.com> <ab0940dd-9ad0-d012-5530-a6a35dd659e9@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxtgRZErxSfPOQd1xts4zg+1RWuYFOZSey=HgG-Y9g0Dhw@mail.gmail.com> <b7c0eb29-d11b-1a54-5325-d8fccb1c778d@nostrum.com> <CAD5OKxthX_GVNCchMvovAac9Q_hwLVP2VHudp3QUEZxfzBj5HA@mail.gmail.com> <b5cd275a-1dc7-9729-fea0-e8e2b432f171@nostrum.com> <f54c5932-7254-151f-a04a-07cb86809fe7@cisco.com> <CAD5OKxv_Xge=g0wtyADF3QO6qjp9iwu4sKMmYvC6zdVw5kg4tw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRcRGStO+WjTBxETS4usOFS7NZSYgRP0ciWXZ8Sw8FBfge=5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxt76SVqcKCP_bsWyPEe8sXe2+Kmq4WqDgmcK9EqrJLw+g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxt76SVqcKCP_bsWyPEe8sXe2+Kmq4WqDgmcK9EqrJLw+g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:22:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMRcRGSeBn+c40vNpOhAa+rCKHFXPPQmShhS0bsFNFA_xXnMyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000492f590580509a0f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/mcIXsFBpLyzpf9yj698axJ1nw3c>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Please Read and Comment: Re: ICE SDP/JSEP peace accords
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 23:22:42 -0000

Hi Roman,

Clarification question inline

On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:35 AM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>; wrote:

> I have provided my comments on pull request. I think this is a reasonable
> way forward but the language requires clarification.
>
> We will also need to update ice-sip-sdp to deal with some of the
> ambiguities:
>
> 1. We need to specify that protocol in the answer must match protocol in
> the offer, even if none of the ICE candidates in the answer match. For
> instance, if an offer is received with TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF , but the
> answer contains only UDP candidates, answer MUST sill use
> TCP/DTLS/RTP/SAVPF
>
>
[Suhas] If none of the candidates match, shouldn't we report ice-mismatch.
So in the example, if one side has just UDP and other side just TCP , we
can't proceed with the connection, isn't it ?



> 2. We need to specify what address and port must be used if protocol in
> the m= line does not match any of the candidates. I think using IN IP4
> 0.0.0.0 and port 9 is a safe option which avoids ICE mismatch.
>
> Regards,
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 1:58 PM Suhas Nandakumar <suhasietf@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> I think Adam’s Pr on this topic is reasonable way forward.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Suhas
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 10:50 AM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>; wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 9:05 AM Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com>;
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/22/19 4:42 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1/22/19 3:40 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:36 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 1/22/19 3:33 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 4:25 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>; wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/22/19 3:15 PM, Roman Shpount wrote:
>>>>>> > The issue is the offer generated when ICE restart is not initiated
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> > TCP candidate is currently nominated. TCP candidate is the only
>>>>>> > candidate which is present in both offer and answer. It is also the
>>>>>> > default candidate. No UDP candidate will be added it any point
>>>>>> during
>>>>>> > the offer/answer exchange.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is what I tried to indicate with the use of an italicized
>>>>>> "always"
>>>>>> in my previous reply.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EVEN IF it is generating an offer when ICE restart is initiated and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> TCP candidate is nominated, Chrome will still always (always, always)
>>>>>> generate an SDP that includes a UDP candidate and use that
>>>>>> candidate's
>>>>>> value in the m=/o= lines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless I am mistaken, if ICE restart is not initiated, only the
>>>>> nominated candidate must be included. No other candidates must be present.
>>>>> If Chrome does not follow this, then it is most likely not complaint with
>>>>> either ICE or JSEP specifications.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on the conversation I had with their engineers, that seems to be
>>>>> the case.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Based on RFC 5245 section 9.1.2.2 (
>>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5245#section-9.1.2.2) this is wrong:
>>>>
>>>> The agent MUST include candidate attributes for candidates matching the
>>>> default destination for each component of the media stream, and MUST NOT
>>>> include any other candidates.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not disagreeing.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So where does this leave us ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I think JSEP sections 5.1.2 (
>>> https://tools.ietf..org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-25#section-5.1.2
>>> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-25#section-5.1.2>)
>>> and potentially 5.2.2 (
>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-25#section-5.2.2)
>>> would need to be updated to be consistent with each other and mmusic drafts.
>>>
>>> There is currently a discussion on RTCWEB of pull request
>>> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/862/files which attempts to fix
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> _____________
>>>
>>> Roman Shpount
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mmusic mailing list
>>> mmusic@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic
>>>
>>