Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse

Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Wed, 30 January 2019 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <roman@telurix.com>
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 0E1F3126F72 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 07:58:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.03
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 trMb9J9t6FUa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 07:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x535.google.com (mail-pg1-x535.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::535]) (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 D2ED112426E for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 07:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x535.google.com with SMTP id j10so15118pga.1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 07:58:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=telurix-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=nTqZPAcRJZp2T06sNHA8sHt268bS2Ro10QX22QHros4=; b=Tfn/DGfJUYFK0F3u15MTRlZtHD7jLSVa0GI2BlCGe68zz7Zro8WNirJBw6aEWqZ9ds yrkMkvnoTx70+YP43B/ChpoBDWRFhos1YqsjEBQbxjaTVR1oYjunlISeSBbJqhQXxDUm V1373LrSLjK4Uc8Y6E+MnGqSKQsMNei5jOnpElBjEI65+LK+L0o224HR/USfiMjCocXy vEU3f5KZ7J09mRuSmEnHrMd92UsJG5NHTcFWrPJlDPaAK2cNJt05FRwD3JXf1qd9w6Wk HQji5swQG+WO9nqwkWZVq9vpVyPcSg74FoVFJlFw3fmMp3rseJWgS2W4mmPUS3lXba25 mcfw==
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=nTqZPAcRJZp2T06sNHA8sHt268bS2Ro10QX22QHros4=; b=J8spvtifXq6kOyco/WJmSGzkOULZG/DcCEmNl+a9pRqtPVe11uwcUH8Ej9v9A24+JX LsL3wEgV1ZbufGlKciHpijsT3zooau+G0SB7rD09dXsRULf/I0HdLrBPNBSV3K0RNxEZ fNuSdQgFUOtocQGavfMpxgVAGH5WTQvj5g0/yQYnketrW2jzEV1Z8Aq4gKHAu6vzVKXw xVFFm2QCn9dHQVBzR5yH2uTX43kL5ng9WC63QC/8DcVz1e6VBMzW5Yz7Dz1nP5YpCCL/ MqxVcVgEk37i04APn9utj8cg5Lwxd5XiIhb17lcBsx6z8u+9YMoaCky5z2vZXtl4IVgI mW/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukcH1FGncQ2k7Q9L2vo1vBC6Eacu+kJykTxTGvWWsmZ5jFs4s5xO mjARqE7/fqgEaIl3iguJKfJlDmIDPPk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6nmftapTdiad/J3AAHUeFBx58WuSAImvMTRRYv43HdYiAVk8TtRLEBLRzuINcwNlDa9xugtg==
X-Received: by 2002:a63:f901:: with SMTP id h1mr28075019pgi.154.1548863919185; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 07:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-f182.google.com (mail-pg1-f182.google.com. [209.85.215.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g3sm5886455pfe.37.2019.01.30.07.58.38 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 30 Jan 2019 07:58:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-f182.google.com with SMTP id y4so10482022pgc.12 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 07:58:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a62:4bcf:: with SMTP id d76mr32462977pfj.170.1548863917776; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 07:58:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <97ed2641-8a7e-19a9-be38-a3458ca9212e@nostrum.com> <CABcZeBP9t0SgsHAuENo99D6ffKd7Mw0Xs1vzUCOzSS=WJN5z8A@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3161B0F1D2B5AC9DA72DDFAD93950@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOJ7v-3KHi0TUDsQvG6qq-qeNGBsqLxg+NC1c+Nxvgy0ks0d0g@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNL=sWFfh=zwiuib80HPsno=GzF18gU+z3DrCZTK_PquA@mail.gmail.com> <CA+9kkMDh56CeXRGNSk_r-HrLkDNT5DnYc_FguXOdeccfq=LEMA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPboLf0bLUDTyJArxsPYSnUrULArmsZ9YshQCX+rEvexA@mail.gmail.com> <937eade0-f126-472a-d990-aa4b65ea5a82@nostrum.com> <CABcZeBMXwNY9DyAg-5V2iQUBUiSvy_sE+7ShcjNGJu-WxDFx2w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMXwNY9DyAg-5V2iQUBUiSvy_sE+7ShcjNGJu-WxDFx2w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 10:58:27 -0500
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvH2wQswM=dBKV7TQkt6b1P8myfdyh_2LhrmFUCQxpg6A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxvH2wQswM=dBKV7TQkt6b1P8myfdyh_2LhrmFUCQxpg6A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009fe7070580aefbcf"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/1u921XHHNnD-c3nAXrDVdychHF8>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 15:58:42 -0000

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 8:25 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 5:10 PM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>
>> [as an individual]
>>
>> On 1/28/19 6:55 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> > it's unnecessary complexity
>>
>>
>> To make sure we're not all overlooking something that is obvious to you
>> -- can you describe the complexity involved here?
>>
> Having to condition what you put in the proto line depending on the
> candidates is more complexity than not having to do so.
>
> I just want to note that m= line containing the proto field already
depends on ICE candidates present in the offer and that the port in m= line
already required to be updated whenever default (active in JSEP which is
even more common) candidate changes. We are talking about dynamically
generated string and discussing complexity of updating one or two parts of
this string based on the same condition while keeping them in sync. I would
assume additional complexity required for this is minimal.

Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount