Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse

Ted Hardie <> Tue, 29 January 2019 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CE4124BF6 for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:47:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jevqSHO_2fvM for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::335]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B6A1126C7E for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:47:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i20so16457110otl.0 for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:47:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+B1o545uI40ttKIvuOaxciuFn38AC+3RRER3KRySOwI=; b=L+1z6SDqOm02v08lv6FGCwB75/XrJbG42ezG5JhbzYRYPaqpJJgxvHiWREoRlF2ArE nc5/yXq876YzlJuOh1ATpxZMXrjGjXqi8Fi6D25QdAQvGSQmlue/GHzRCWUUnFz0H0NX g8zd2S9y9zZiI0/ZJsNJJPHp6i8RVS2rE06cztserJfKJvPWoPONZpg3WuZRNQdBQBcS 1kk3rXqsgeaQKRx2X+51S/Bt5Q+1IyEEjAV697npiFMNm4wKzLVjUVSJ0dI9JqLYdhm2 Kk5F96R7c/lz91fk6err3oZgj5yCK6+vYqZ/itYE2EFQGL6pdhtEPuXMrZGBYEZsR8/4 /wuA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+B1o545uI40ttKIvuOaxciuFn38AC+3RRER3KRySOwI=; b=fjOMzoUvySLGkSd2uWwYCUQZ6ozSvsLaMq5grWlAV0X2kniq3SQHk8P8/326N92gnX nSuL2pi1ny5DhFKEVemA9csesRFnqaidG/nAeMoooZldROk310w4+LwHhpt08eAcX4/h ozeDvLuJpBU2/N2nORm3cM2+Ya+YgpXnJg3QyzD6eCP4W/9nhxcLvyF7XKIRrx9tFTPb TyLZchPg3tyn1SNrjHHczdmpS7cDpEhl6V+2qMH8mHWNUyip9uAmMtBCzV5hs4wZgW9i z+9ire7LFJHqqOXyTKtPd/IL62VeQCmQ3cQa0yM7COvKXK1oXYdq+Zwr19lmt38iCh/I ib9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukdfdp31lvSIjrVvd9EcH1b3Zx/dDpOOlYGpsMshBnAAr310UPH+ dhOVPpC860jB02xkepbBNw7RrhITGhKF74rh32s=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4uqtnDRn96LJqjhtQ9QtrYqcYPr7+AWrgcblWuBrY8a+hjhv90/wDGWLC6bs5hx70yMNipmORbiXpTC9oHNT0=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:738a:: with SMTP id j10mr18387922otk.188.1548722819524; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:46:59 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ted Hardie <>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:46:33 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Eric Rescorla <>
Cc: Justin Uberti <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000836e4805808e21fa"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:47:04 -0000

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:36 AM Eric Rescorla <> wrote:

> 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.
As a chair, I wish to confirm my understanding:  you have no technical
objection to this solution, but you do not wish to include this because you
have seen no evidence of the problem.  Is that correct?

Yours is, at the moment, the only objection I have seen.  Before going to a
call for a consensus, I want to make sure that the nature of any objection
is as clear as possible.



> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:51 PM Justin Uberti <> wrote:
>> Posted 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 <
>>> 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 <> 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).
>>> 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 mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list