Re: [rtcweb] RFC 5245 interpretation (Re: Requiring ICE for RTC calls)
Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> Tue, 27 September 2011 15:03 UTC
Return-Path: <roman@telurix.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 58BF921F8E3D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.517, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Zlrji05rlGVE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8382F21F8DF8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so6738569yxt.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.157.229 with SMTP id o65mr7566830yhk.73.1317135988666; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:06:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw0-f44.google.com (mail-yw0-f44.google.com [209.85.213.44]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z15sm34030807yhg.21.2011.09.27.08.06.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6so6753159ywa.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.68.22.105 with SMTP id c9mr37131799pbf.88.1317135986166; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.55.39 with HTTP; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4E8185FC.8000906@alvestrand.no>
References: <CAD5OKxtNjmWBz92bRuxka7e-BUpTPgVUvr3ahJGpmZ-U5nuPbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSmz5T_F+SK2EoBQm6T-iRKp7dd4j8ZAF5JKdbbyomZQA@mail.gmail.com> <CALiegfmO54HC+g9L_DYn4jtXAAbLEvS++qxKa6TNrLDREs9SeA@mail.gmail.com> <4E80984A.903@skype.net> <CALiegfmyvTb57WVooKryS-ubfcg+w5gZ+zfO1zzBLn3609AzaA@mail.gmail.com> <4E809EE6.2050702@skype.net> <2E239D6FCD033C4BAF15F386A979BF510F1087@sonusinmail02.sonusnet.com> <CAD5OKxviJaGvA-0AW=sAxSYm8hL+t8Xgr+4Ma+QBL0HWmZf_6g@mail.gmail.com> <4E8185FC.8000906@alvestrand.no>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 11:06:26 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD5OKxsE98yrpoRhuzSgXdwQCE_3BGZH3a-=nH7_4+3xUHZR4Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec52154c5938e4504aded9edc"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] RFC 5245 interpretation (Re: Requiring ICE for RTC calls)
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 27 Sep 2011 15:03:44 -0000
Let's see: 4.1.4. Choosing Default Candidates A candidate is said to be default if it would be the target of media from a non-ICE peer; that target is called the DEFAULT DESTINATION. If the default candidates are not selected by the ICE algorithm when communicating with an ICE-aware peer, an updated offer/answer will be required after ICE processing completes in order to "fix up" the SDP so that the default destination for media matches the candidates selected by ICE. If ICE happens to select the default candidates, no updated offer/answer is required. An agent MUST choose a set of candidates, one for each component of each in-use media stream, to be default. 5.1. Verifying ICE Support If this condition is not met, the agent MUST process the SDP based on normal RFC 3264 procedures, without using any of the ICE mechanisms described in the remainder of this specification... 6.1. Verifying ICE Support The logic at the offerer is identical to that of the answerer as described in Section 5.1, with the exception that an offerer would not ever generate a=ice-mismatch attributes in an SDP. My interpretation of this always was that ICE enabled end point MUST generate an offer that will be understood by a non-ICE end point, properly process on offer from a non-ICE enabled end point, and properly process an answer from a non-ICE end point. So if we want RTC to be ICE complaint we should be able to communicate with non-ICE end points, or define a new specification. _____________ Roman Shpount On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 4:14 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote: > On 09/26/11 20:48, Roman Shpount wrote: > >> You can determine that end point is not behind symmetric NAT using older >> STUN specification and list discovered IP as a default contact address in >> SDP, if you are not behind NAT, you can list the relayed address of the TURN >> server as the default address. If you do this, together with the offer that >> lists ICE candidates, you would be able to traverse NAT and communicate with >> non-ICE end points. >> >> I think discussion in this thread is not whether ICE needs to be supported >> or implemented. I would say that ICE without a doubt should be supported. It >> is about changing ICE specification as it stands right now, and force the >> RTC end point only to communicate with end points that respond with ICE >> compliant answer and complete ICE hand shake. This is actually against the >> ICE specification as it is defined in RFC 5245, where answerer actually can >> refuse to support ICE but still establish a call. >> > Roman, > > Which part of RFC 5245 are you referring to with this statement? > > Please describe the sections you think will be invoked when an SDP OFFER > contains ICE candidates, the answerer does not want to use ICE, what the > OFFER and ANSWER would look like, and which section of RFC 5245 is invoked > when processing the ANSWER. > > Details are good. > > Harald > > ______________________________**_________________ > rtcweb mailing list > rtcweb@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/rtcweb<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb> >
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Cameron Byrne
- [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Cameron Byrne
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- [rtcweb] RFC 5245 interpretation (Re: Requiring I… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] RFC 5245 interpretation (Re: Requiri… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RFC 5245 interpretation (Re: Requiri… Christer Holmberg
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Justin Uberti
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] RFC 5245 interpretation (Re: Requiri… Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Eric Rescorla
- [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC calls, … Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Randell Jesup
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Igor Faynberg
- [rtcweb] ICE deployment experience (Re: Solutions… Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Cameron Byrne
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Iñaki Baz Castillo
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Roman Shpount
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Cullen Jennings
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Matthew Kaufman
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Richard Shockey
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Richard Shockey
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Harald Alvestrand
- Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1 Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Tim Panton
- Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1 Hadriel Kaplan
- Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1 Cameron Byrne
- Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1 Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1 Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1 Dzonatas Sol
- Re: [rtcweb] SBC hardware and SHA1 Ravindran Parthasarathi
- Re: [rtcweb] Solutions sought for non-ICE RTC cal… Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
- Re: [rtcweb] Requiring ICE for RTC calls Cullen Jennings