Re: [rtcweb] Trickle ICE update and a new SIP usage draft.
Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com> Thu, 31 January 2013 04:39 UTC
Return-Path: <bernard_aboba@hotmail.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 C55BA21F8625 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:39:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.442
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.442 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.155, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10=0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Qe-Q628wxkEa for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:39:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from blu0-omc3-s20.blu0.hotmail.com (blu0-omc3-s20.blu0.hotmail.com [65.55.116.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24F421F85E8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:39:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BLU002-W135 ([65.55.116.72]) by blu0-omc3-s20.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:39:27 -0800
X-EIP: [AINpfFS6urFd2Nc2EKMyHJmRHx39NhnQ]
X-Originating-Email: [bernard_aboba@hotmail.com]
Message-ID: <BLU002-W135DFFEE9A913CDC443056C931D0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_658e6361-49c0-4fc5-9a77-a1fac38aedd8_"
From: Bernard Aboba <bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 20:39:26 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <51094C89.7020302@jitsi.org>
References: <20130128193921.20420.53308.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>, <51094C89.7020302@jitsi.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2013 04:39:27.0149 (UTC) FILETIME=[F39065D0:01CDFF6C]
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Trickle ICE update and a new SIP usage draft.
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: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 04:39:28 -0000
> During the MMUSIC presentation and the mailing list discussions it was > also pointed out that it is important for this work to happen in > parallel with a SIP usage for trickle ICE. Enrico, Christer and I have > therefore submitted the following document: > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-00 > > As always, comments are welcome! Is my reading of the draft (see below) correct? 1. "half trickle" offers the possibility of backward compatibility, if the capabilities of the answerer aren't known and an RFC 5245 compliant offer is made, since the Recv-Info: trickle-ice header is included in the Offer per RFC 6086, as well as in a reliable 18x/2xx response. 2. Section 3 suggests that the Offer in "half trickle" contains all candidates. The Answer presumably includes host candidates (including just 0.0.0.0 would not make much sense) in the response. There seems to be no need for the Offerer to send a "trickle-ice" Info-Package since it sent all the candidates in the initial Offer. 3. After the response is sent, then the Answerer starts the trickling via the "trickle-ice" INFO packages. The Offerer knows to expect this since a Recv-Info trickle-ice header was included in the response. 4. If a pair is selected that includes a candidate obtained from a "trickle-ice" Info-Package, is a conventional RFC 5245 offer/answer exchange (not using INFO) required to confirm it?
- Re: [rtcweb] Trickle ICE update and a new SIP usa… Bernard Aboba
- Re: [rtcweb] Trickle ICE update and a new SIP usa… Emil Ivov