Re: [rtcweb] WG adoption call: draft-mdns-ice-candidates

Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com> Wed, 01 August 2018 14:37 UTC

Return-Path: <jonathan@vidyo.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 48F6B130F39 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 07:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.409
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.409 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=vidyo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 yG6XxiXxw94G for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 07:37:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x233.google.com (mail-qt0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEAA0130EB1 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2018 07:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x233.google.com with SMTP id b15-v6so20085825qtp.11 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 07:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=vidyo-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=z7GD5eVr2BwtaciWbCOfje/ntDODZ9AZkhTFWEjQ2y0=; b=YSa4IBSIaEXALHTGFhIL1405Tqs4F0emH0ZzRPDdRpLKOOoNYYlAIMU7vZB7QoQtGz nOyat8+2/0axaPBa7BpqFngKJbzNb4sYYhsFyt2k0Hx6MvcFfQ7d2sUEINpJZ/VPX9Q6 FQAGkt8SWk7VwojsgynzqVJpsLSy3by/iE47dIXl3MOg3bUZxLimNZhOG5vhAdcKg6bz E/AkZkbz2HPeCkw/jWFlL59NmtLFvFpaLbx2p1Opi104GnjG/qrTaAv0IRt7d+zUwrEu CWn/IBGwbrWn8E6Op5wiLsMx663Vy8moxwJWAe9XyZquUVCWzj6C+H+Fjn0ClhwugXEL P/IA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=z7GD5eVr2BwtaciWbCOfje/ntDODZ9AZkhTFWEjQ2y0=; b=Dg9c7evc3wpMdxODJptiLWbYda6KpgSaf5ri7jAZJ/sylLghiqmerMo1bLG30uaEvQ xjXOm4MoFPhE/Q02Gpyc7u8dDei5XbYedKJI32ruZO/d7rxNb4tC2fS3UYR/DWLK94IK zIZUBT5yOBI1WeGRI2r7BAlFn8UK10W+lDdkHUH1Qkqfyl/NiIODJMOFloGSWqY15LFZ YdciyRHqWoOMnOGvRFOeM2dUMhl9ej/RzjRr+IrxaQm/S2xVa/FWBcJGeS0AvLH4UcCC rI0iZkPXJvVozvLWGbxpsaf5D/+OKAlkYeqdvHhV1CH5T7L3lBaXMoPgaSNiELUcpbzq q9KA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOUpUlHKCsEs3oqOJjuXupHb6eS1VkAmstoowltzjY5HIpONZLElwX3M ZkQHqFocJSQGK6YriO6GbgrdqA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpcHu0edwNRLOs26U2uDhg159lFFeDLRv5h5yKCWCAeaVAQzJYi6e3C6yDq0oypsOVVDEny1CQ==
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:35b8:: with SMTP id k53-v6mr25554111qtb.39.1533134258701; Wed, 01 Aug 2018 07:37:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [172.16.2.142] ([160.79.219.114]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g39-v6sm15257335qtb.47.2018.08.01.07.37.37 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Aug 2018 07:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
Message-Id: <182700F2-9594-4E9C-A46C-F639FBBA6297@vidyo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E775C5BB-D8AB-4A52-8903-27E9BEAA5981"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:37:36 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAOJ7v-2gp=Eu-q=twCWeueYtW7Vr61r8-=L5O7j4Vn8fkBZcLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
To: Justin Uberti <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
References: <CF938109-02C6-4950-A485-A41D07928B41@sn3rd.com> <11b6f595e3104b8fa70de30a82e09571@ericsson.com> <CAOJ7v-2gp=Eu-q=twCWeueYtW7Vr61r8-=L5O7j4Vn8fkBZcLQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Q_EFsW4e93nGVwCjDasfhHUAh9U>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WG adoption call: draft-mdns-ice-candidates
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Wed, 01 Aug 2018 14:37:42 -0000

RTCWeb may mandate one IP address per FQDN, but a WebRTC implementation can’t guarantee that the author of its remote description is always a WebRTC implementation.

The other complexity of DNS resolution is that you don’t want to require that all DNS lookups be complete before connectivity checking is started.  

RTCWeb mandates trickle so you can treat DNS resolution completing as though the candidate was trickled in at that point, but this will need to be specified somewhere.  Again, I think MMusic is the right place.

I think an MMusic or ICE draft on FQDN handling in ICE, and an RTCWeb draft recommending mDNS, should proceed in parallel. I don’t see them taking appreciably different amounts of time.

> On Jul 31, 2018, at 8:03 PM, Justin Uberti <juberti=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Regarding DNS resolution and associated complexity, I think we can sidestep most of that here in rtcweb given that we will be mandating 1:1 mapping between foo.local names and IP addresses.
> 
> IOW, the mDNS name is simply an alias for the IP, and therefore the questions noted below are answered easily for this particular situation. 
> 
> We can continue to discuss the general case of this problem in mmusic.
> 
> On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 3:10 AM Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com <mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In Montreal this was discussed in MMUSIC, and the outcome was that this will require more work, in MMUSIC or ICE.
> 
> I have also given some input why I think ICE support of FQDNs in general (not specific to mDNS) requires more work.
> 
> For example, as an FQDN can be associated with multiple IP addresses, does that mean that the endpoint providing the FQDN will create separate "sub candidates" for each IP address that the FQND can resolve to (as a candidate per definition is associated with ONE transport (IP address + port + protocol))?. If so, each of those local candidates may end up in different foundations, some may be pruned (or removed because of other reasons). In addition, is the endpoint supposed to send checks on each of these candidates? For how long will it maintain them? Etc etc etc.
> 
> The concept of "multi-address candidates" is a new thing, currently not covered by the ICE specifications.
> 
> Now, IF we assume a "FQDN candidate" will only resolve to one IP address, the issue is easier to solve, but based on comments from others we cannot make that assumption.
> 
> So, while I do not object to working on support of mDNS in ICE, my suggestion would be that the ADs, and the RTCWEB/MMUSIC/ICE chairs, discuss on how to move forward, before we adopt this draft.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Sean Turner
> Sent: 28 July 2018 03:43
> To: RTCWeb IETF <rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [rtcweb] WG adoption call: draft-mdns-ice-candidates
> 
> The consensus in the RFCWEB@IETF102 room was that the WG should adopt  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mdns-ice-candidates/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mdns-ice-candidates/> as a WG item. But, we need to confirm this on list.  If you would like for this draft to become a WG document and you are willing to review it as it moves through the process, then please let the list know by 2359UTC 20180810.  If you are opposed to this being a WG document, please say so (and say why).
> 
> Note that the draft has been marked as a “Call for Adoption by WG Issued” in the datatracker.
> 
> Thanks - spt
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb