IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE for SIP Questions

"Parthasarathi R" <partha@parthasarathi.co.in> Thu, 25 July 2013 15:55 UTC

Return-Path: <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
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 BF55821F9B19 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.264
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.264 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NcPPOBwCzBaV for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.mailhostbox.com (outbound-us1.mailhostbox.com [69.93.141.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 916C121F9AAB for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 08:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from userPC (unknown [122.179.63.252]) (Authenticated sender: partha@parthasarathi.co.in) by smtp.mailhostbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7A18619082CF; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:55:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=parthasarathi.co.in; s=20120823; t=1374767716; bh=DI6N6uMsJtV0BIDojWJC8dpIRfd5HDAcWGRguzOc/YA=; h=From:To:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=lSOGT5gxH5z8Pv+cxJPDktEVGBc1ij4WXrqahfQhk37Lt5ZNMJlA1jvyuGFhDfGti ORz7+zkMaC/DrPHtOig3HepSsjriULqdseeYksBFRtchHWN+7Tsrog+zJ4jvVsKE1G Hes5V2pvws1W6wAhwekHCQsTKpjXzg8HC/jcr5us=
From: Parthasarathi R <partha@parthasarathi.co.in>
To: 'Christer Holmberg' <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "'Cullen Jennings (fluffy)'" <fluffy@cisco.com>, "'Vijaya Mandava (vimandav)'" <vimandav@cisco.com>
References: <1CDFD781608D924094E43F573C351961BDE2DC@xmb-rcd-x13.cisco.com>, <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB11360D0D2@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4083B4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B1C4083B4@ESESSMB209.ericsson.se>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 21:25:04 +0530
Message-ID: <00df01ce894f$58a3baf0$09eb30d0$@co.in>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00E0_01CE897D.725BF6F0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: AQHOd/eSpf9rBUBElUWwJCcck0Z1VZlzKl8AgABpUQCAAARAgIAAc7GAgAAYYYCAABo/gIAALD5ggAE8h2A=
Content-Language: en-us
X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A0C0208.51F14A64.0078, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0
X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown
X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown
X-CTCH-Score: 0.000
X-CTCH-Rules:
X-CTCH-Flags: 0
X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000
X-CTCH-SenderID: partha@parthasarathi.co.in
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalMessages: 1
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSpam: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalSuspected: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalBulk: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalConfirmed: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalRecipients: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-TotalVirus: 0
X-CTCH-SenderID-BlueWhiteFlag: 0
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.72 on 70.87.28.138
Cc: 'Alan Johnston' <alan.b.johnston@gmail.com>, 'MMUSIC IETF WG' <mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE for SIP Questions
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:55:20 -0000

Hi Christer,

 

The only way to identify whether it is same from UAS is to look into contact
header/IP address of the SIP response. In this situation, contact header and
IP address of SIP response is same all for "to-tag".

 

My concern is w.r.t INFO with SDP handling. I have written in the different
thread.

 

Thanks

Partha

 

From: mmusic-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:mmusic-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Christer Holmberg
Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:05 AM
To: Cullen Jennings (fluffy); Vijaya Mandava (vimandav)
Cc: Alan Johnston; MMUSIC IETF WG
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE for SIP Questions

 

Hi,

 

Wouldn't the UAC need to know that the 180s come from the same UAS?

 

Regards,

 

Christer

 



Sent from Windows using TouchDown (www.nitrodesk.com)


-----Original Message-----
From: Cullen Jennings (fluffy) [fluffy@cisco.com]
To: Vijaya Mandava (vimandav) [vimandav@cisco.com]
CC: Alan Johnston [alan.b.johnston@gmail.com]; MMUSIC IETF WG
[mmusic@ietf.org]
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE for SIP Questions


On Jul 24, 2013, at 12:22 PM, Vijaya Mandava (vimandav) <vimandav@cisco.com>
wrote:

> 180 with different to-tag would mean call is forked.
> If uac side do not support call forking, then we cannot use this 180
> response to collect trickled candidates.

If it is a UAC, it supports this so I don't see the problem.

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email