Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Sat, 08 September 2018 07:56 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 30F98130DBE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:56:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ericsson.com
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 eSKOarLI1DZE for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:56:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sesbmg22.ericsson.net (sesbmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.48]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA52B130DEC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 00:56:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=ericsson.com; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt; i=@ericsson.com; t=1536393406; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=zhZAutLXyaIcItL598yiw1QuHbz30KNK8yQe5zq3YVY=; b=Gldx9uL3vZXI0c3QqE1Rc2+OcMSh3dBMcoCa2YsE3KXiROXlCvMSrdZInpmRnOez JIYclGWtLBk58bFAaGQ8PNP4DVTh7KghDnw+st4E8p3qcNJn+iHh/EAY68yKW9BC umSa8DMEIlt5kHQICws8Mw/r4IaqZrx6O08AVMo+Gig=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb30-fe1ff700000055da-25-5b9380be2fe1
Received: from ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.121]) by sesbmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 1B.17.21978.EB0839B5; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 09:56:46 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESBMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.170) by ESESSMB503.ericsson.se (153.88.183.164) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 09:56:46 +0200
Received: from ESESBMB503.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.186]) by ESESBMB503.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.186]) with mapi id 15.01.1466.003; Sat, 8 Sep 2018 09:56:46 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com>
CC: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>, "Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion" <art@ietf.org>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>, "clue@ietf.org" <clue@ietf.org>, "mmusic@ietf.org" <mmusic@ietf.org>, RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ice] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238
Thread-Index: AQHURh+v3CEVPFpjI0266oWKAGTzsaTkftOAgABlSICAADz38P//+sMAgADoqRA=
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 07:56:46 +0000
Message-ID: <ac037e187432422690cf005d0a3ed3cd@ericsson.com>
References: <15d3b114-5c04-61c4-8a62-61d8a414143d@nostrum.com> <7D1A35C5-FF09-4F93-ABA8-74D877952EF0@iii.ca> <46E40ED2-D289-4C0F-8C0B-82A5980B2692@ericsson.com> <E05D7CB4-832E-4221-ADFE-D8F317EEA8F1@iii.ca> <dc1d42b9ee4a425fa44976575c92ba86@ericsson.com> <52EA7B1E-D7BE-4940-B6C2-9F9AE90D3DAC@mozilla.com>
In-Reply-To: <52EA7B1E-D7BE-4940-B6C2-9F9AE90D3DAC@mozilla.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.153]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFlrEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7pe6+hsnRBk//y1usuOthsf/UZWaL D+t/MFp8u1BrMXX5YxaL6/MmM1qs/dfO7sDusWTJTyaPy+c/Mnr0HehiDWCO4rJJSc3JLEst 0rdL4MrYe+gRY8E33orFkz+wNzCe4O1i5OSQEDCReNY0na2LkYtDSOAoo8Sh67fZQRJCAl8Z JU4eYIdILGWUOLjuL2MXIwcHm4CFRPc/bRBTREBT4sRGPpASZoFXjBITv61hA+kVFrCV2Njx CcwWEbCTuL3pMguE7Sfx8vIlVhCbRUBF4tPW2ewgc3gFrCWeny+DWLWbSWLd+ZVg9ZwC9hIP Gt8ygtiMAmIS30+tYQKxmQXEJW49mc8E8YCAxJI955khbFGJl4//sULYShJ7j11nAZnPDHTn +l36EK2KElO6H4K9yCsgKHFy5hOWCYxis5BMnYXQMQtJxywkHQsYWVYxihanFiflphsZ6aUW ZSYXF+fn6eWllmxiBMbcwS2/DXYwvnzueIhRgINRiYc3LXVytBBrYllxZe4hRgkOZiUR3mlp QCHelMTKqtSi/Pii0pzU4kOM0hwsSuK8Fn6bo4QE0hNLUrNTUwtSi2CyTBycUg2Mmrl3BI9/ XLVf9It1skTB7Mp/rZ6XIjedj+BeVKGn6d01tf9qwHIdoVeC6wx3sR610q+ZoxrQIphYtPnF 7J8fblh+yS55Jx62K8vR0astLGQ348/nH3rKJt3SP7j60aw1u3g3RG+rzzpyf7reAr7djhd+ /bj+U/fVIcbNGvGmCa7zBKbeLv5RpMRSnJFoqMVcVJwIAC1qMxu1AgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/KXKeMAwoUZDBh0hJT60otYZObTg>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 08 Sep 2018 07:56:53 -0000

Hi,

>>> dig not indicate an improvement of connectivity rates. I did not see 
>>> results from others that did. Some of the early test results from 
>>> others that drove this work were not reproducible in our testing. The 
>>> one thing I think most people did find is that the more out of sync 
>>> the pacing of the two agents was, the worse the connectivity was. But 
>>> all of this is water under the bridge, we have old and new ice, 
>>> people can use either. What we are talking about here is what is the 
>>> minimum bar for WebRTC 1.0
>> 
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but WebRTC 1.0 does use trickle, and does not use aggressive nomination.
>
> Sorry but that is not correct. Firefox does use aggressive nomination. Chrome (and everyone who copies their 
> full stack including their ICE implementation) does not. I’m not aware of any normative language for any of the 
> WebRTC specs demanding to use full nomination only.

With "full nomination" I assume you mean regular nomination (as defined in 5245)?

My point was that WebRTC defines the usage of "nomination", which is the terminology 8445 uses. I am not saying it's forbidden to use aggressive nomination, but as far as I know (I may be wrong) usage of it is not mentioned anywhere. 

Regards,

Christer