Re: [rtcweb] JSEP: Why always offer actpass?

[Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Stefan Håkansson LK <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 30/11/14 16:06, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) wrote:
> >> On 30/11/14 14:51, Makaraju, Maridi Raju (Raju) wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>>> RFC 7345 (UDPTL-DTLS) says the following:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Once an offer/answer exchange has been completed, either
> >>>>>> endpoint
> >>>> MAY
> >>>>>> send a new offer in order to modify the session.  The
> >>>>>> endpoints
> >>>> can
> >>>>>> reuse the existing DTLS association if the key fingerprint
> >>>>>> values
> >>>> and
> >>>>>> transport parameters indicated by each endpoint are unchanged.
> >>>>>> Otherwise, following the rules for the initial offer/answer
> >>>> exchange,
> >>>>>> the endpoints can negotiate and create a new DTLS association
> >>>>>> and, once created, delete the previous DTLS association,
> >>>>>> following the same rules for the initial offer/answer exchange.
> >>>>>> Each endpoint needs to be prepared to receive data on both the
> >>>>>> new and old DTLS associations as long as both are alive."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> So, I guess that can be read in a way that the setup attribute
> >>>>>> as such
> >>>> does not impact previously
> >>>>>> negotiated TLS roles - unless the key fingerprint values and/or
> >>>>>> transport
> >>>> parameters are modified.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The SCTP-SDP draft currently says that a subsequent offer must
> >>>>>> not change
> >>>> the previously negotiated roles. But, I guess
> >>>>>> we could say something similar as in RFC 7345.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have struggled with this language quite a bit from the
> >>>>> implementation
> >>>> perspective. I think we need to explicitly state
> >>>>> that endpoints MUST reuse the existing association if the key
> >>>>> fingerprint
> >>>> values and transport parameters indicated
> >>>>> by each endpoint are unchanged.
> >>>>
> >>>> We could take such general approach.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, for 'SCTP/DTLS' (DTLS over SCTP), I assume that the DTLS
> >>>> connection will also be re-established if the underlying SCTP
> >>>> association is re- established - even if no transport parameters
> >>>> etc are changed.
> >>>>
> >>>> Also, RFC 6083 says:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Each DTLS connection MUST be established and terminated within the
> >>>> same SCTP association."
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> The way this language reads to me is that endpoints can reuse the
> >>>>> existing
> >>>> association if they want to, but they can create a new one if they
> >>>> don't. Also, when this new
> >>>>> association is created, it is unclear if old setup roles MUST be
> >>>>> preserved
> >>>> or if they MUST be selected based on the current offer/answer
> >>>> exchange. It seems the current
> >>>>> specification language is not strong or clear enough on this
> >>>>> topic.
> >>>>
> >>>> In my opinion, IF a new DTLS connection needs to be established
> >>>> (for whatever reasons), the current roles should be used.
> >>>
> >>> <Raju> When ICE is NOT used, how does the offerer know that the
> >>> answerer does not change the fingerprint and/or transport parameters?
> >>> I guess it does not know. So, offerer has to be prepared for new DTLS
> >>> association by offering actpass. When ICE is used, the answerer can't
> >>> change transport parameter unless offerer does ICE restart (which
> >>> changes offerer transport parameters); Ref [1] is very clear on this
> >>> indicating "DTLS handshake procedure is repeated". However, even when
> >>> ICE is used, I do not find any restriction about answerer not
> >>> changing fingerprint. So, even without ICE restart answerer can
> >>> trigger a DTLS renegotiation by changing its fingerprint.
> >>>
> >>> To conclude all this, IMO whether ICE is used or not, sending actpass
> >>> for all new offers may be cover all possible scenarios.
> >>
> >> That is also my conclusion based on the discussion so far.
> >>
> >> I also think the JSEP draft as far as detailed out is correct, but info
> >> about how the implementation should behave for Subsequent answers is
> >> missing. Text saying that the role must be maintained (unless there is
> >> an ICE restart) should be put in there.
> >
> > <Raju>
> > Hi Stefan,
> > Looks like, there is some misunderstanding here.
>
> Probably my fault in that case :)
>
> > My conclusion is to include
> > actpass, but not the previously negotiated role, in all subsequent
> offers,
> > not just during ICE-restarts.
>
> I think that is what the JSEP draft says - and my conclusion is that it
> _is_ correct.
>
> My point was that the _answer_ should (when it is a subsequent answer)
> should say the same role as in previous answers (unless there is an ICE
> restart).
>
>
I agree the JSEP text should indicate that roles should stay the same. We
have had this as a TODO for a while:
https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/72


> > This is to handle the scenario of answerer changing fingerprint, which
> > is allowed (i.e. not explicitly disallowed), in a more
> > natural way by renegotiating the roles. Entity which wants to change
> fingerprint
> > may also want to renegotiate the role even when transport parameters are
> not changed.
> >
> > Also, when ICE is not used answerer can change transport parameters
> which needs
> > renegotiation of roles.
> >
> > So, to have uniform rules for ICE (restart or not) and no ICE it is
> better to
> > send the role in subsequent offer as if it is an initial offer (i.e.
> actpass).
>
> That is also my understanding (and what the JSEP draft says).
>
> > </Raju>
> >
> > BR
> > Raju
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>