Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"

Christer Holmberg <> Thu, 18 October 2012 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75B4121F8697 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.12
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.12 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Oo6CtR1DwZIY for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:17:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66EA521F8652 for <>; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 04:17:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb25-b7f956d0000011c3-b8-507fe54c14f0
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id B1.9F.04547.C45EF705; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:17:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:17:31 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:17:31 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: Emil Ivov <>
Thread-Topic: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"
Thread-Index: Ac2XjRRR2xT3N2ETRimioq1qbE99zgVCc2oAABiJLGAAAy+oAAAG/KWg
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:17:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpgkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGfG3VtfnaX2AweGFwhZrdk5gsdg6Vchi xq2zLBZr/7WzO7B4LNhU6rFkyU8mj/9vAj1uPZjEFsASxWWTkpqTWZZapG+XwJXx5+AE5oIG wYp7Z2+wNzCeEOhi5OCQEDCRWLUjsYuRE8gUk7hwbz1bFyMXh5DAKUaJyZuOMEE4Oxklfnd2 M0M4SxglPj/+wQTSzSZgIdH9TxukW0RAXqK7bRETiM0sUCUx+docRhBbWMBSYt3HK+wQNVYS Pxc9h7LdJI5euAhWwyKgKjH3RDMriM0r4C3xrX89K8SuPmaJjoYPYEM5BTQl1my4D9bACHTq 91NroJaJS9x6Mp8J4gUBiSV7zjND2KISLx//Y4WwFSV2nm1nBrmZGWjO+l36EK2KElO6H7JD 7BWUODnzCQuILSSgLdGyeAL7BEaJWUg2zELonoWkexaS7gWMLKsYhXMTM3PSy430Uosyk4uL 8/P0ilM3MQJj8eCW36o7GO+cEznEKM3BoiTOa711j7+QQHpiSWp2ampBalF8UWlOavEhRiYO TqkGxllb8uZ2ChyWm+Cpu9Z79rfNL1cu61h2ws/68KL5/GserTOMiEu+p/XVxkQ8Zuttvlmt XTFHRITfV/5IWP46Za+DBdfU7xlPmjITPRo7RQ+kdH/81NtxWcOkVo595abiD+a2vv9mfdH8 cDAn+/HZWtUDl86l5i3k9k5g+lN9p4Lr4MrMTft8rimxFGckGmoxFxUnAgCas3CwkwIAAA==
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:17:34 -0000

>>> 4) How does trickle ICE work without “relaxing” RFC3264 O/A? It seems 
>>> like you really want to be able to trickle via updated offers that 
>>> may be generated prior to the corresponding answer or reject?
>> One of my comments on the trickle draft was about that. The draft says 
>> that a new offer can be sent "at any time", but my comment was that it 
>> should be according to 3264.
>That's not exactly what the draft says. What it does say is:
>  At any point of ICE processing, a trickle ICE agent may receive new
>  candidates from the remote agent.


And, it is of course true in one sense, because STUN requests creating peer reflexive candidates can of course be received at any time :)

>> IF we are going to relax 3264 (I really hope we are NOT), it needs to 
>> be clearly described somewhere. We cannot have a number of I-Ds doing 
>> it "on the run"...
> I don't see how trickle ICE would require any changes to the O/A model.
> Candidate trickling semantics are completely separate from those in 3264.
> Yes, the 3264 offer may, in some cases, contain a first batch of candidates and the the 3264 may have to be delayed until ICE processing yields valid pairs for every component but that's about it.
> Am I missing something?

I guess the question was whether one, after the first batch of candidates have been sent in an offer, should be allowed to send the second batch in a new offer - before an answer to the previous offer has been received. That would be against 3264.