IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] ICE-Mismatch and WebRTC

Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> Tue, 08 July 2014 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <emcho@sip-communicator.org>
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 DA2671B2BB8 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 UeJ5rLJbbhtb for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:33:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f172.google.com (mail-wi0-f172.google.com [209.85.212.172]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5282D1B2BC2 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jul 2014 09:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id hi2so1333107wib.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZacTESRjRwEp7890QfHveuRegHxST7HSGLmmup6TXhg=; b=ll+x1YfQXYLoTD0hcoOwIbxLEehhuL0NIjPP1X/yMZ33ch9RpFdketZmpHtfelLPqr lFzQxza27v18mdnktd/6Vuiwoc37Eall+dU6WFvLUk3TNHDLQUFK6mvM+PH09Gyrpkp1 eUsg65s701DC8VJ2zJRtvUe7YXyxKhsaSfRjIKAm5wurFYlG7h25aZR8+qhV21d2axpg C2mzH4bB/Bk3EbBdfeWa9YGdGAkxJLnH/g5XIlWCJv//9h64o9p/idmbIFiI8YbruI1J 6DAGEGniExHHSU2lJlBvsucDragNLlXVE06ijf3brhEdaCNJWQPeELGB+ZE2o/xcwZWL wA+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmr4aiERZ3MM2tq2rCSOn5W16YuhI6YiH3EYfSFzN1fiyOg0Kal0VRnRHt5j1MNV5+lqnkE
X-Received: by 10.194.109.71 with SMTP id hq7mr5553127wjb.114.1404837207065; Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:33:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.23] (9.6.69.91.rev.sfr.net. [91.69.6.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ev9sm8755015wic.24.2014.07.08.09.33.25 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 08 Jul 2014 09:33:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <53BC1D53.4080904@jitsi.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 18:33:23 +0200
From: Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
References: <CAD5OKxvGcq+hZ5vQLyq4OS2wHTdYiKYpm4+ntaKdqLMBu84SYw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxvGcq+hZ5vQLyq4OS2wHTdYiKYpm4+ntaKdqLMBu84SYw@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/Eo3AOpQmkdXPofMyNoggBjAvSaU
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] ICE-Mismatch and WebRTC
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: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 16:33:37 -0000

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.

Emil

-- 
https://jitsi.org

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email