Re: [rtcweb] Is rtcweb the right place for draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates?

Justin Uberti <> Thu, 04 July 2019 05:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5668212014B for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 22:41:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 XjqjbwLjGvrj for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 22:41:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::934]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 45D8912012A for <>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 22:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id j2so725340uaq.5 for <>; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 22:41:33 -0700 (PDT)
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 :cc; bh=FBXKNQpN98BawmhyarmGYd+8NU2WNWrZK5d3jBTXlrE=; b=aF8egkTZGh+r3x1oyIJWTbn+WFXaLmM8lYA+gwbzapiKgOHA0TBb6ONJ0qMtxlTc/G OOutt9sfDdjx0n2wNLdvzX2+GNm+v3DsIayVeevWLcBck99Lwl04fV4h6mDApPZCXytE +xthLUTsW7GxwFtRLjSwy9VaTqpCIQml9sVZRO928StPX7kqVuOpit3QOmqVp9Tpee77 3uypzxVB5kjY1pE8hdpET9RyQG8apU+ku8+c9C8apbGY91SV86m+YdmR5Q2T+JEmnyL9 tyA3o73fO6wi+LaqJaQzY1k7KrMQj5i0NSEN4/7WSWPVM3Zj9x8PJmCLjZVhPGo4EgY1 3jeQ==
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:cc; bh=FBXKNQpN98BawmhyarmGYd+8NU2WNWrZK5d3jBTXlrE=; b=QLLQkL3v6/ATSv1nKawPOxbQ1UAA+aQKrMrmu+95JI82tKGIQryFqgM2PdqLfRrzv2 Ai5s7JaalQLkTmVqWIpVVp28L1EWHF53Frm0Y1wrt91UUpXJWN/dlSWl/9UROR4egJFf 8PCD5DlZh0UV/OhgWbJjbUemzmSaNuALYJsw3/wwb8TM6OEFQ+MsX0pFMpDPOum8jryC 34AQWMJdG6QpUK7tD5e8cqOnotkdJHMJzeM7OkI4RSrVADi1KtDQn3HAhA3peBdwWpyT GQKmPuatPqALFS1thwGzTnKgeZH1KlF9kioR3eJKx76dlSV7GauQdpbSoOOEEkZotsG5 YYug==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVrvWAQtZop7qrznOu0H+bms6wb3JYZRxVbUuDU5FamiMO+9f4+ yay6HwPsRBwPhv5Q8w9TjLOzvp9bejpGFm+3UbKOAg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzWzKv98utgXzyE+a00mBvIOyEUn720M7WICKOoDVZYbTz99VV8JT8zp0hAjP9ZMyyRekiJ2soFdzbA23wK6b4=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:5922:: with SMTP id n31mr19527954uad.103.1562218891873; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 22:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Justin Uberti <>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 22:41:20 -0700
Message-ID: <>
To: Nils Ohlmeier <>
Cc: Roman Shpount <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001cfe26058cd46e86"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Is rtcweb the right place for draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates?
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: Thu, 04 Jul 2019 05:41:37 -0000

As I understand it, mdns in the c= line will only occur in edge cases,
i.e., when there are no other candidates. As such I don’t see this as a

We have measured the connectivity impact of this change in significant
detail and feel increasingly confident there are no egregious latent issues.

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 9:50 PM Nils Ohlmeier <> wrote:

> Probably not the ideal forum to point this out, but I hope the Chrome team
> is aware that rolling out this feature, assuming it includes using mDNS in
> the connection line, will break interop with Firefox.
> So I have to concur that rolling this out appears to be premature to me.
> Best
>   Nils Ohlmeier
> On 3Jul, 2019, at 17:58, Justin Uberti <
>> wrote:
> Hmm, that's unfortunate. I think this is a mistake, given that we are
> about to throw the switch to enable mDNS for 100% of Chrome endpoints;
> Chrome (and soon all browsers) will have to ignore ice-sip-sdp until this
> extension spec is written.
> ice-sip-sdp isn't published yet, so it seems an update to that document
> could still be a possibility. If that's not an option, putting forth #1 as
> a specific extension that allows FQDN candidates to be generated in certain
> situations seems like the right path.
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:40 PM Roman Shpount <> wrote:
>> Part of the problem is that mmusic have decided to punt on the FQDN
>> support. In the current mmusic-ice-sip-sdp the final language that was
>> included:
>> <connection-address>:  is taken from RFC 4566 [RFC4566].  It is the IP
>> address of the candidate, allowing for IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and
>> fully qualified domain names (FQDNs).  When parsing this field, an agent
>> can differentiate an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address by presence of a
>> colon in its value - the presence of a colon indicates IPv6.  *An agent
>> generating local candidates MUST NOT use FQDN addresses.  An agent
>> processing remote candidates MUST ignore candidate lines that include
>> candidates with FQDN *or IP address versions that are not supported or
>> recognized.  *The procedures for generation and handling of FQDN
>> candidates, as well as, how agents indicate support for such procedures,
>> need to be specified in an extension specification.*
>> So, at this point we have two options:
>> 1. draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates can update ice-sip-sdp and
>> define how FQDN candidates generated by mdns are handled
>> 2. write a new draft in mmusic which defines FQDN handling
>> In any case some sort of mmusic discussion is needed to reconcile this.
>> Best Regards,
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:28 PM Justin Uberti <> wrote:
>>> The problem this draft is trying to solve is fairly RTCWEB-specific. If
>>> there are individual issues to resolve, we can send them out to mmusic for
>>> discussion, but AFAIK no changes to existing ICE specs are needed.
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:26 PM Roman Shpount <> wrote:
>>>> Hi All,
>>>> Is rtcweb the right place for draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates?
>>>> This entire draft seems to be ICE/SDP specific and not limited to rtcweb.
>>>> Also, there are significant interop implications for this draft
>>>> between browser and non-browser end points which probably warrant larger
>>>> discussion outside of rtcweb group. I would think mmusic would be a much
>>>> better place for this draft. I know there is an incentive to complete this
>>>> draft quickly but this has a potential to break a lot of things (it already
>>>> did break interop with almost every existing ICE implementation).
>>>> Regards,
>>>> _____________
>>>> Roman Shpount
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list