Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse
Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Tue, 29 January 2019 00:36 UTC
Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28F8A126C7E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:36:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.04
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.04 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 eNZClCskA6ot for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:36:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22a.google.com (mail-lj1-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D206124BF6 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:36:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22a.google.com with SMTP id c19-v6so15938221lja.5 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:36:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=HadwHJuHQPaPDxfeRuL7uscRWjd8jVqWEwxE1+nG4GE=; b=y2dbUggnn7/2MKZyktwqLubTeoG2nkyLIFnn8pc685v9AAZqn+eTFfIORNPJEhemcw oqJqrhO7G+WH8tfHlSwTM2UH2yjxZGxdMgxbl2XhJJuXiZ9oKLCvZUuIIUgRiQxUrCmN PBzS3FaFcXJBZBtzHSlNa4x2BysDXLjZTzxVFWjnopnc6Pe92QN8fMnBjGBZ7s8AmxXe SisEbhlUzB/oMjio7HSV+QUyUOqqI4ZhyI1XBSconu+dgWz3UgGxTpn+Ecf0TMSDWe5a m7siq/RtAGIsA+Qu9b3KldoYnx9E4YqogC659dBjRPYbfpRCwfhsjSlfcVsoTwzChETn cqVA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=HadwHJuHQPaPDxfeRuL7uscRWjd8jVqWEwxE1+nG4GE=; b=ptElfVhcTAfsemsFsSrSUM4qy4BBUCk+pfqRz8XxgPW3Z4EclnvYYB6cM7ukLXPfc3 aPX6s2gu3ddMF1vVDtFVd/OpfnZIGNwXw0J0NudGJqjsQZPuR4i9yC/sw22NwOmYiPan kYqGe8hlS0MBZfUcsT9nhXeCXnV3IUJJRMAglJvK+GqT3kYHGQCuP2tpuG5W0c9pbTVG Nz8mLsR/mkYJ3/E+S5UCdy3/Zs7i7VEeIMjtfgbpnJ8o+WwPZm1kImFlCy8mJXsv8Ieb nD0bIGAVQo0vopLupqkef21kbgycey9Fcmu64+BuzehwB8nzzA79YACItpqZzy1F+nO4 e7uA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukenzaQJ+rYXszCuSLhiifynjLj1zj/ERFnyvGPvUTxV28MXqbbA sEb4lGngQN2+8h+i/khMErmnnJF6bqvpOyLhoNGneA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN6QH63PHpLUlEWFD7tWNmHyT6/XAoNFWUWiW1jcPNnGQeMGj+yq20JM1PX5xH2mrPlSjxxOZa7QXgvbn1dRloQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:e02:: with SMTP id 2-v6mr18882629ljo.10.1548722164463; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:36:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <97ed2641-8a7e-19a9-be38-a3458ca9212e@nostrum.com> <CABcZeBP9t0SgsHAuENo99D6ffKd7Mw0Xs1vzUCOzSS=WJN5z8A@mail.gmail.com> <HE1PR07MB3161B0F1D2B5AC9DA72DDFAD93950@HE1PR07MB3161.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com> <CAOJ7v-3KHi0TUDsQvG6qq-qeNGBsqLxg+NC1c+Nxvgy0ks0d0g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-3KHi0TUDsQvG6qq-qeNGBsqLxg+NC1c+Nxvgy0ks0d0g@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:35:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNL=sWFfh=zwiuib80HPsno=GzF18gU+z3DrCZTK_PquA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000781a2c05808dfad4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/F7-PVVgmzKcc9DHuwHoQBWkRWzk>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 29 Jan 2019 00:36:10 -0000
If we assume that this is a real problem as opposed to a specification problem, then I agree this is reasonable. However, so far nobody has shown me that this is a real problem, and until that this happens, I'm not in favor. On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:51 PM Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote: > Posted https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/863 as a stab at a > consensus. This basically says that the offerer fills in either UDP/TLS/foo > or TCP/DTLS/foo based on the current default or selected candidate, in > accordance with sip-sdp. As Adam mentioned before, this shouldn't have any > impact on JSEP functionality. > > If this looks good, I'll polish it up. > > On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 3:22 AM Christer Holmberg < > christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> > I'm not yet persuaded this is needed. The alleged need here is that >> there are some ICE-implementing endpoints which will choke if >> > they see a profile that doesn't match any actual candidate. I recognize >> that this is required by 5245, but that doesn't mean anyone >> > ever did it. Can you please point me to a client which would >> interoperate with a WebRTC endpoint with this change that would not >> > if you just always sent the same profile as JSEP currently requires. >> >> I don't think it is ok to *specify* that discarding a MUST is ok as long >> as nobody can show an implementation that would break by doing so. >> >> Having said that, in order to prevent an RTCWEB shutdown I am generally >> ok with Adam's approach. I would like my pull request comments to be >> addressed, though, that is related to separation between the JSEP API and >> an application using it: an application should be allowed to act according >> to 5245/draft-ice-sdp and update the c/m line if it wishes to, but due to >> the way the JSEP API works such applications might sometimes always include >> the same value in the c/m- line. >> >> I also think it shall be explicitly written that JSEP does not update >> 5245/draft-ice-sdp, but rather deviates when it comes to the c/m- line. >> >> Regards, >> >> Christer >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:12 AM Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote: >> >> Based on conversations in MMUSIC, as well as several offline >> conversations with interested parties, I've put together a proposed >> change to JSEP that, if accepted, will allow publication of the Cluster >> 238 documents to move forward. >> >> Note that this new text has no impact on existing implementations (at >> least, as far as I am able to discern), which do not currently have the >> capability of producing media sections consisting of exclusively TCP >> candidates. From that perspective, the change makes existing >> implementations no less compliant with JSEP than they were before. >> >> What this change does provide is both on-paper and in-the-future >> compatibility between WebRTC implementations once they finalize TCP >> candidate handling (and candidate handling in general for mid-session >> offers). >> >> https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/pull/862/files >> >> The key insight here is that JSEP's use of ICE completely discards any >> meaning associated with the transport parameter, while SIP's use of ICE >> does not. The trivial change that I propose, which bears only on future >> WebRTC implementations -- that is, which has no as-built specification >> to point to -- allows JSEP to continue to ignore the value of the >> transport parameter, while specifying that it says the right thing for >> SIP implementations to function properly. >> >> /a >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rtcweb mailing list >> rtcweb@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb >> >
- [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Suhas Nandakumar
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Adam Roach
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Ted Hardie
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Nils Ohlmeier
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse Christer Holmberg