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

Emil Ivov <> Thu, 18 October 2012 12:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43FB21F8711 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zQWZ-FoUwK4H for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:31:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAE521F8701 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:31:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id hq12so1668889wib.13 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state; bh=QyM8q6ivlmKgeG3C/AQDNC3g7WPSpQ8rU3I6VuEeEZE=; b=BSblSM8xVnefO932GtpZU+9+DT9aZ84s5PpNZqpXDsxNnwgB6R++BgfXmvLvteu13f AihS1xQVZMGDqlpmK8dYBoPNHNSdXYVOd9PWYy8wHohhbvBp5xXfBGkiQGYD2ijCyH6z LMV9W4P11cCj0xSmLt5Pmz/60H5WQMyrW4+8a5Vkl+oCvbo0qiFmlv21G86pKaJIa/Yq 2LWY7r9wNi27MnX8Wjql9TrzAaQ5KED4PIVJcgKYhTtuHk5NXkQN4EY4gIIYKnXNYr8Z 5hDI+siO5XkhAACg4thk+/EndmZy8kRX6l/ta6QV1Wa1wGa3l/o+wG5ZYS6We9lCHBJf RiQQ==
Received: by with SMTP id fa16mr11055543wid.11.1350563466733; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:31:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([2001:660:4701:1001:d09b:d3d8:f1d4:17c4]) by with ESMTPS id w8sm29340154wif.4.2012. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 18 Oct 2012 05:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:31:04 +0200
From: Emil Ivov <>
Organization: Jitsi
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Christer Holmberg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkFcXeRCgzkTsPRLcIQKGRG7FbS8swt7FlDStK9zLkwC3MqEeTwEQyWw21RtBJCVRmUmFCr
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:31:08 -0000

On 18.10.12, 14:26, Christer Holmberg wrote:
> Hi,
>>>>>> 4) How does trickle ICE work without “relaxing” RFC3264
>>>>>> O/A? It seems like you really want to be able to trickle
>>>>>> via updated offers that may be generated prior to the
>>>>>> corresponding answer or reject?
>>>>> One of my comments on the trickle draft was about that. The
>>>>> draft says that a new offer can be sent "at any time", but my
>>>>> comment was that it should be according to 3264.
>>>> That's not exactly what the draft says. What it does say is:
>>>> At any point of ICE processing, a trickle ICE agent may receive
>>>> new candidates from the remote agent.
>>> Correct.
>>> And, it is of course true in one sense, because STUN requests
>>> creating peer reflexive candidates can of course be received at
>>> any time :)
>> True but in the "Trickle ICE" case it would be more common to learn
>> new candidates through signalling (rather than PR candidates during
>> conn checks). This is what the text refers to. I agree we should
>> make it clearer that we do not really mean PR candidates here.
> Sure.
> (Remember our previous discussion, though, about PR candidates being
> enough if the remote peer is ICE lite ;)

I do :).

>>>>> IF we are going to relax 3264 (I really hope we are NOT), it
>>>>> needs to be clearly described somewhere. We cannot have a
>>>>> number of I-Ds doing it "on the run"...
>>>> I don't see how trickle ICE would require any changes to the
>>>> O/A model. Candidate trickling semantics are completely
>>>> separate from those in 3264.
>>>> Yes, the 3264 offer may, in some cases, contain a first batch
>>>> of candidates and the the 3264 may have to be delayed until ICE
>>>>  processing yields valid pairs for every component but that's
>>>> about it.
>>>> Am I missing something?
>>> I guess the question was whether one, after the first batch of 
>>> candidates have been sent in an offer, should be allowed to send
>>> the second batch in a new offer - before an answer to the
>>> previous offer has been received. That would be against 3264.
>> It would indeed but I am not sure why we would think of additional
>> candidate drops as offers at all. They are just independent
>> signalling and are only loosely related to the 3264 semantics.
>> Of course with SIP we would have a problem caused by the fact that
>> additional in-dialog signalling is blocked by the 3264 answer.
>> However, that's specific to SIP and will probably be best served
>> with a SIP specific solution (e.g. UPDATEs or forcing early
>> answers, or something else).
> It is sure that SIP may add its own limitations, but the general O/A
> is generic.

Sure, and we agree that the general O/A need not be used for trickle
ICE, right?