Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12

Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no> Sat, 28 October 2017 19:23 UTC

Return-Path: <harald@alvestrand.no>
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 5680013F567; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:23:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.198
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 io6MzMu6AIWa; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:23:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DC7113FD29; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 12:23:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BAFB7C0DBA; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:23:28 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZRs7lQoqapOE; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:23:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.8.101] (216-90-11.connect.netcom.no [176.11.90.216]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A195A7C0AF4; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:23:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 21:23:16 +0200
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAJrXDUE3_f5EWWV7cj-ggyzz4kgaBhsDimNvY__mJw9rMFDzBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <66220024-e08b-aa61-ffe2-3c279c377a34@alvestrand.no> <D60A5C84.23E43%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <f4da1671-f7bd-e153-04da-a0462316798d@alvestrand.no> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B5635D4B5@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <1cb09b36-54db-afc1-ff5f-4a37c1701a23@alvestrand.no> <CAJrXDUE3_f5EWWV7cj-ggyzz4kgaBhsDimNvY__mJw9rMFDzBA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----T44WE4HWJ5P2D1FWX7O25QPQMTHE2X"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ice@ietf.org,Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
CC: "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
From: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Message-ID: <65F82D26-ADBD-48C9-B483-BA74D9C46A11@alvestrand.no>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/J_C63CtoEA7-QWJZLbjz-PxewNU>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 19:23:33 -0000

I think the rewrites done are entirely satisfactory. There's always things one can quibble about, but finishing is valuable. On to IETF Last Call!

Den 28. oktober 2017 19:47:53 CEST, skrev Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>;:
>I looked through all of Harald's suggestions and I reviewed the PRs
>since
>then, and it appears to me that most, if not all, of Harald's
>suggestions
>have been incorporated into the doc.
>
>Do the two of you agree, or is there something still missing that we
>need
>to do?
>
>On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:32 PM Harald Alvestrand
><harald@alvestrand.no>;
>wrote:
>
>> Leaving in only the one with something left to write...
>>
>> Den 17. okt. 2017 21:26, skrev Christer Holmberg:
>> >> I was thinking of something like:
>> >>
>> >> The exchange of information MUST result in the following
>information
>> being available to the ICE agent:
>> >>
>> >> - Whether the remote peer supports ICE at all
>> >> - What ICE options, if any, are supported
>> >> - Whether the remote peer is Lite or Full
>> >> - Whether the remote peer thinks it's the Initiating Agent or not
>> >> - What candidates the remote peer wishes to make available
>> >> - Whether an ICE restart is desired
>> > Looks ok, but I am not sure what mean by the 4th, regarding
>thinking
>> it's the initiating agent or not.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The spec says that the initiating agent will take the CONTROLLING
>role
>> if both parties are Full ICE implementations, or if both parties are
>> Lite implementations. This means that it has to know that it's the
>> initiating agent.
>>
>> In cases like Offer/Answer (without glare), it's simple to see which
>one
>> is initiating. In cases with 3rd party control (both parties get
>called
>> for setup), chat-line systems (both parties initiate a join) or
>> protocols where glare is possible, something has to make the decision
>on
>> which side has the Initiator role.
>>
>> I'd prefer to abandon the Initiator concept, and say that the
>exchange
>> of information should give back the information to each about whether
>> they should try to take the Controlling role, but that may be a
>larger
>> rewrite.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ice mailing list
>> Ice@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>>

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.