Re: [rtcweb] ICE-Mismatch and WebRTC

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Emil Ivov <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 07.07.14, 21:48, Roman Shpount wrote:
>
>> Is it possible to run into ICE-Mismatch with WebRTC? Should we specify
>> that default candidate (c= and m= line based candidate) should be
>> ignored and thus mismatch check should not be performed?
>>
>
> I guess running into an ICE mismatch with WebRTC is just as possible as
> with any other ICE implementation. I suppose the only difference would be
> that rather than falling back to 3264 semantics, WebRTC implementations
> will rather drop the session because without ICE, they wouldn't be able to
> do consent checks for it.
>
>
My point was that WebRTC would never use 3264 semantics and use address
from c= and m= lines for any purpose, so why does it need to check that
this address is correct? Would it be more sensible just ignore whatever
value happen to be there? Or, better yet end point can generate an error
instead of generating a response with ice-mismatch.

It would also be nice to define what WebRTC end point is supposed to do if
it gets ice-mismatch attribute in the SDP response. I would assume dropping
the connection is one sensible option. Generating an error would be another
one.

_____________
Roman Shpount