IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] ICE-Mismatch and WebRTC

Kevin Dempsey <kevindempsey70@gmail.com> Mon, 14 July 2014 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <kevindempsey70@gmail.com>
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 453621A0351 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 01:06:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 uwSOYurTS82p for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 01:06:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 046AC1A0350 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 01:06:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id e16so1052836lan.39 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 01:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=PffRan+6DlBHldKgG/w/OgEGMMlr8jyHIfL+Twjp43c=; b=hC2e4yE0TQurnF2DyiTi3sImmgTone5a7TuVw95IUKJzLN+tlGpNkSUXZ45yMiI17/ Z09ZSSmF8ZThloG1FFvq+7vdoZUZE4NXiYvHikc3p7+5Fh0EU1Pl+tmnrqmW5E4e+x4x tkXDNhEab3xlx8XxOipC6j3E1oDVAphS1pikfK/grRM4ztNmDsaTxm1vJ+BYl01TDPJO 9pMqzN8AgK2+EQ6LFMn/OcuTvwO1uDBDbFUmbOe6rETqANOreHaSJHD+mkSP1urFgXu+ JbC/Eyrzr1vQUFIyhQCSATrBQuKA2hJewKWclc7AngZ0iBp2h7xwkwrsKFlyUbU0dYUz 2mlw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.37.194 with SMTP id a2mr13055153lak.29.1405325207345; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 01:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.167.9 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 01:06:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-2sPiApHM34xxbPUt5=nb2LugQZ-mzoAYKW5qd3_t=8GA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAD5OKxvGcq+hZ5vQLyq4OS2wHTdYiKYpm4+ntaKdqLMBu84SYw@mail.gmail.com> <53BC1D53.4080904@jitsi.org> <CAD5OKxsWEkDGTvidUGcRi2AzWjmCnqXwoQtBn7-f5PzEzrNL2A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPvvaa+zA_n_U_1iBC0=wRPJG4pf-SEv8Ni0fZNGPXt4Byj2Bw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2-zx=V1Nc7TwKp444M19NQqdej0K4COd=V8aHpEQhXrg@mail.gmail.com> <53C02268.9030109@jitsi.org> <CAOJ7v-3dbs=WO-nELsA8o9pFoTgx+D1XKPZWdX9QuNr5eQNuAQ@mail.gmail.com> <53C047A4.9000706@jitsi.org> <CAD5OKxtuxE6O77j4tqdBCqa9nkkOmVg-t=Du_1jqiVX0nJC4uA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2sPiApHM34xxbPUt5=nb2LugQZ-mzoAYKW5qd3_t=8GA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 09:06:47 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMvTgcfqipcd0+GoRp+q6zP+ehsM2BTzhui6y7faZpLjrwzfaw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Kevin Dempsey <kevindempsey70@gmail.com>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e013d1656c71eec04fe22c54d"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/FvS2O-hMZpktESPqGd-_caLOzwM
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
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: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 08:06:50 -0000

In Emil's example, Bob might later receive a trickled candidate:
a=candidate:1 1 UDP 1130706431 *87.65.43.21* 5000 typ srflx raddr
192.168.0.1 rport 5000
which, if it was in the initial offer, would mean there was no mismatch.


On 12 July 2014 16:28, Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> Agreed, with a special case for the no-candidates trickle ICE situation.
> On Jul 11, 2014 5:20 PM, "Roman Shpount" <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>
>> I would agree with:
>>
>> 1. Must fail if c=/m= line IP does not match any candidate. Must also
>> fail if rtcp attribute does not match any RTCP candidates.
>>
>> 2. Must fail if "ice-mismatch" attribute is present same as no ICE
>>
>> 3. Port 0 in m= line to disable the line must be understood
>>
>> 4. c= line with 0.0.0.0 must fail
>>
>> Does this make sense?
>> _____________
>> Roman Shpount
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email