IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"

Francois Audet <francois.audet@skype.net> Tue, 28 August 2012 00:23 UTC

Return-Path: <francois.audet@skype.net>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72AFC11E8097 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rkeg-nMEW7Di for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:23:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from am1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (am1ehsobe003.messaging.microsoft.com [213.199.154.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 833A021F84D3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 17:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail42-am1-R.bigfish.com (10.3.201.254) by AM1EHSOBE010.bigfish.com (10.3.204.30) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:23:12 +0000
Received: from mail42-am1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail42-am1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060BB1E005F; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:23:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.8; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:none; EFVD:NLI
X-SpamScore: -26
X-BigFish: VS-26(zz9371I542Mzz1202hzz1033IL8275dhz2fh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah107ah1155h)
Received-SPF: pass (mail42-am1: domain of skype.net designates 131.107.125.8 as permitted sender) client-ip=131.107.125.8; envelope-from=francois.audet@skype.net; helo=TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ; icrosoft.com ;
Received: from mail42-am1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail42-am1 (MessageSwitch) id 1346113391181007_26264; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:23:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AM1EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (unknown [10.3.201.252]) by mail42-am1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200234004A; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:23:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.8) by AM1EHSMHS016.bigfish.com (10.3.207.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:23:10 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.2.89]) by TK5EX14HUBC106.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.80.61]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:23:08 +0000
From: Francois Audet <francois.audet@skype.net>
To: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>, 'Emil Ivov' <emcho@jitsi.org>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"
Thread-Index: AQH4Z3X5I7zcrx421Sos9AL76IZ9BAJvCnahAdiFK1ACgKa3jAGz5sLXAsrOx68ChET32QJMFXN+AitKuM4CAxiVZgJ/+26+AdDCUrACfNC2awJzCOrgAdiruaeWHX4mcIAAIIbw
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:23:08 +0000
Message-ID: <66F9C712A970F74A8376BBE53013193C0DD0C76C@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <CABcZeBMzgAs=hK38hCjS7t6yLjkTydS2TQUb8R3rBbRKGakVdQ@mail.gmail.com><CABkgnnVBBAH=HCkn_cksBs_9A_hm=VfFwcTtvOM3C7XB2h2KTA@mail.gmail.com><CABcZeBMFUFjU=FQo5LeJrcMfajeae0j+PWw5U2g5dUQNcJLWaA@mail.gmail.com><CABkgnnXiL3_U+Hci9ooDqBCsoV3KF8pwgcf9zbuN6EKZkK+aiQ@mail.gmail.com><CABcZeBNkkH93ybuMWoFg-ddKWnRgdn2Vgyb50W21A2GoMWxw6Q@mail.gmail.com><CABkgnnXQ25ZYNqeO+=FsYDR3aNvFS2zvrKWGs5o=h8m+Eq=Y+Q@mail.gmail.com><3B8DB12B-ABB3-4AC2-A0A0-93DC62C619D3@iii.ca><CABkgnnU3ecmhUwCYHmppwLJz-nbSA6=VRF7nF7wcpb+5QAWmdQ@mail.gmail.com>, <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD81069D82BF@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>, <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4840E4E7B56@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>, <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD81069D8500@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>, <AE1A6B5FD507DC4FB3C5166F3A05A4840E4E7C02@tk5ex14mbxc272.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>, <503BDC75.7050008@stpeter.im> <BLU002-W2286956624CC6600038246993A20@phx.gbl> <503BEEFD.40301@jitsi.org> <BLU169-DS457B54FA311A048E5E68B093A20@phx.gbl>
In-Reply-To: <BLU169-DS457B54FA311A048E5E68B093A20@phx.gbl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.78]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: skype.net
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 00:23:15 -0000

Wouldn't the same mechanism as XEP-0176 work with SIP too, by sending new offer/answers with new candidates?

In either cases, it is true that the "trapezoid" model makes this process more difficult than with the "triangle" model.

But you don't *have* to do trickle ICE don't you, in the trapezoid scenario (especially when involving protocol mapping).

-----Original Message-----
From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernard Aboba
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 3:29 PM
To: 'Emil Ivov'
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"

Emil Ivov said: 

Well an ICE stack that implements trickle as per XEP-0176 would currently not interoperate with a 5245 implementation or, at best, would lead to unpredictable results.

The description in XEP-0176 is actually quite perfunctory and can't really be considered a proper specification.

A document that describes a proper way of implementing this would hence be quite helpful.

[BA]  You are correct that XMPP/Jingle signaling will not be understood by a
SIP UA.  However,   I don't see anything inherent in the use of STUN/TURN 
within XEP-0176 that violates RFC 5245.  If the issue is lack of clarity in XEP-0176, shouldn't that be brought up in the XSF, which owns the specification?

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email