Re: [rtcweb] Call for consensus on ICE transport parameter issue (February 15).

Ted Hardie <> Wed, 13 February 2019 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DA371292F1 for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:53:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Fr8uBdwfyoj6 for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10DC0126F72 for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:53:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id h6so6859307itl.1 for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:53:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=0NeXLEgvqCCxo/lLRYAn23MtUdIF/bc0KGXJP+y2+q4=; b=oZGUXObPAGN5wF/aoYckeLXQsOiTMaBCgLqLjZz0rI+/dO34eIRJTM0JZme0Zwbq8Z RlQom5CA7jN3fasfkOOxF2pmZfFE8So9Lv2VbTceoWuzqT3aXYf5Ak+xgtztsWfXlVfu ZhTkXOmpuUAv4GmuiV+DPS8pmYiy6nrn/7gusLAZHjv8Bk2DyzKShq6z+dEGXIswV3h1 VZMtW8kHHouDJa95b87K6QblObksFnVOXL3afX6yPs2R+/0vKsc0EMI+JFwvK6Hxdyl+ SZpYFgjFxmlb2S/qG5t+McbVvsp2V2GEVDu3xvZFudX2ybmFrqKIoXptkm1uHtEYukUL t2bg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=0NeXLEgvqCCxo/lLRYAn23MtUdIF/bc0KGXJP+y2+q4=; b=OLBt5FZrIJUB1rkpeY6hTqOG1QE7F9X+dIgha81LYvXP6M4j820htrY/VJciduLE8N j9ndY4WBhQ1Ax7WDObTieKV7RsfkutO+OLSxa3XrQdmWYNnftMwLw+oCLTN3oDKUvK5+ IDTJz/eaNrtK7EavKzVUkUXzcZwSPuHE++qfzShq9TLv9f/cH8zk46013fS7WzWLM/IJ 4n9sCdTSjjMb8Aw/fogMrboqHDYKkrNfysGxV2mYnL0hEmM+0byWZBlQKS65fVOy/0Pe Omybs3AEfqEHRMzB2F8bsWbRnWv2y6itvua+OnaZ4wnTZ570FSa68djrhaBg9k0ysdwW atDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuZcT9mWI0cmy3kDiDLIx1I3/s1MIxy2ZLMlX/7VQN0bqtPsISlL rw1aVnPm22PtJOk2oewAPtkZVGb391qXonHjDHVElw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IYzXj8fzNhYA078p2GzM7Yn2Ib0gqVXT0QLC9YccriLhHIQxB1WqH96Aw9XsZXupdhpYkHIW9G8ukQnYhXoNFo=
X-Received: by 2002:a02:601d:: with SMTP id i29mr1134854jac.11.1550083996098; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:53:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 10:52:49 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: RTCWeb IETF <>, Sean Turner <>, Adam Roach <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000f5a3380581cb0d57"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Call for consensus on ICE transport parameter issue (February 15).
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 18:53:21 -0000

As an individual, I support this change.  While I agree that the benefit is
currently theoretical, I think having the breadcrumbs for what to do when
it ceases to be theoretical is worth the effort.


On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 10:42 AM Ted Hardie <> wrote:

> Over the the past few weeks, the working group has discussed whether to
> adopt a change to JSEP which would adjust how the ICE proto line transport
> parameters are populated in certain mid-session offers where the final
> candidate is a TCP candidate.  Outside of the extensive working group
> discussion on the mailing list, participants may also wish to review the
> follow issue:
> and the conversations related to these two pull requests:
> and
> The chairs believe that there is technical consensus that this proposed
> change would not materially affect JSEP-only exchanges, since this
> parameter is ignored in those.
> The remaining technical issues are:
> * whether making one of these changes would improve interoperability
> between WebRTC and non-WebRTC clients which use SIP/SDP.
> * whether the additional complexity in tracking the use of UDP vs. TCP and
> populating the parameter accordingly is onerous or unwarranted for WebRTC
> implementations.
> After reviewing the discussion to date, the chairs believe that there is
> rough consensus for the first point, though there is also broad agreement
> that the benefit of this change is currently theoretical, since no existing
> WebRTC browser implementation has relevant code.
> On the second point, the chairs believe that there is no consensus yet
> demonstrated.  Because we believe that this is in part because the actual
> proposal has not been entirely clear, and the complexity is therefore
> somewhat hard to gauge, the chairs wish to make a specific call for
> consensus.
> Does the working group approve the change in the following PR:
> ?
> Working group participants who have objections to the change are asked to
> specify whether they believe it has a technical fault, whether they object
> on the basis of its complexity, or whether they have other issues related
> to the change they need to raise.
> The chairs are already aware of the objection of Eric Rescorla on the
> basis of complexity, and will factor it into the review.
> Please send comments by February 15th, 2019.
> regards,
> Ted Hardie and Sean Turner