Re: [MMUSIC] Comment on SIP Trickle ICE based on INFO draft

[Emil Ivov <[e-mail]>]

On 23.03.14, 19:01, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> One comment
>
> On 3/23/14 7:54 AM, Emil Ivov wrote:
>
>> This is analogous to an UPDATE that is received before regular 5245 ICE
>> processing has completed.
>>
>>  > >     a) INVITE from local
>>  > >     b) 183 session progress from remote
>>  > >     c) PRACK from local
>>  > >     d) INFO from local (relay candidates)
>>  > >     e) UPDATE from remote
>>  > >
>>  > > Here, the remote has to consider whether INFO belongs to UPDATE or
>>  > > INVITE as
>>  > > it is possible for INFO to reach before 200 OK for UPDATE as well in
>>  > > the
>>  > > same sequence.
>>
>> And CSeq headers wouldn't help here because ....?
>
> IIUC, the question is whether the remote can tell whether the INFO was
> sent before or after receiving the UPDATE.
>
> CSeq values are independent in each direction. So they are useless to
> answer this question. Something else will be needed.

OK, I see. Then the easiest way to tackle this would be to mandate that 
all INFOs contain the ICE ufrag and pwd of the offer/answer they are 
pertaining to.

Does anyone see a problem with that?

Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org