IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Dummy ports

Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com> Thu, 03 July 2014 09:26 UTC

Return-Path: <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08AB41B2826 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 02:26:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 7d3UpHezsJWM for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 02:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com (mail-wi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 727D81B280D for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 02:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id r20so1907532wiv.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 02:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=R2GNa/y3Urd2oV9PU30gt++BHJUX+whqQQgjbbnfhJ8=; b=XOZsclmTQOpUzXYGZJnSY75VxCEetNpjYiG4YFRQfQfTX9Fzl3F7WQExVgOp8xWCD6 BUDuIluXPXoRqlj+6cAqHIWlJrbTJ4F09chpm1x4QZ/AqU5LcpGGJwMxCErDv+64Fgmf dtejMudiIabiiAt9gNPjaKavizHVAZQhys/13lpHfQdj8OkMPCP+9JrM9vzLMeiImmoB OLmsrhtL3RwawTe1XWXJPbkfnqHUeu7w41detonHUpjlDvKXVdqfKfsgMcntcxuFCtKh ryEW7fsb6axnzfslD7H+TgofOCeQj+VQYf3ZNt72jFdVi1Cs0XX70Bo3wnlfo2k0GavY jWsw==
X-Received: by 10.194.133.1 with SMTP id oy1mr3566397wjb.87.1404379609007; Thu, 03 Jul 2014 02:26:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.47] (207.Red-79-146-136.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net. [79.146.136.207]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ec8sm46114376wic.10.2014.07.03.02.26.47 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 03 Jul 2014 02:26:48 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53B521D8.3030404@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 11:26:48 +0200
From: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <CABcZeBMC=SAVX1Ji71yg9bmbmoDFAeKkZER9gOVsFa51Jvk_HA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMC=SAVX1Ji71yg9bmbmoDFAeKkZER9gOVsFa51Jvk_HA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/7X6Fdizkzj-Zah4l1JK5vw70eUc
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Dummy ports
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 09:26:52 -0000

On 03/07/2014 1:22, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Folks,
>
> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/41
>
>
> We ran into a place where bundle and trickle conflict.
>
> Trickle requires that you use port 9 for the c-line if you are doing full
> trickle:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-01#section-5.1
>
>
> However, JSEP explicitly requires that we use distinct ports for
> each m= line:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep-06#section-5.2.1
>
> Obviously 9 is equal to itself, so this isn't going to work.
>
>
> The JSEP editors got together and came to the conclusion that
> we probably needed to use sequential numbers < 1024. Does
> anyone object to this? If not, perhaps Emil can edit this into Trickle.
>

Using well know valid port numbers as dummy values does not seem a wise 
idea for me.
I don't have enough knowledge of ice trickle to know how this should be 
solved, but it seems that you are trying to hack SDP RFCs instead of 
fixing the ice trickle draft.

Best regards
Sergio

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email