Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12 - Information exchange requirements

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

Should this also include ice-ufrag, ice-pwd and remote-candidates?

Regards,

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> I suggest to add the following text to section 2.8 (Usages of ICE):
>
> Each usage of ICE MUST define mechanisms for the ICE agents to exchange
> the following information:
> -       Whether the ICE agents supports ICE.</t>
> -       What ICE options, if any, the ICE agents support.</t>
> -       Whether an agent represents a Lite or Full ICE implementation.</t>
> -       Whether an agent assumes it is has the role of the Initiating
> Agent.</t>
> -       The ICE candidates that the ICE agent wants to make available.</t>
> -       Whether the ICE agent want to trigger an ICE restart.</t>
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Christer
> Holmberg
> Sent: 19 October 2017 17:30
> To: Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12 -
> Information exchange requirements
>
> Hi Harald (and others),
>
> Do you think we should add a new section ("ICE using protocol
> requirements", or something), or do you think the text fits in an existing
> section?
>
> Section 4.3 already contains some requirements regarding candidate
> exchange (the 5th bullet in your list), but I don't think the other
> requirements fit there.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>
> Den 17. okt. 2017 21:26, skrev Christer Holmberg:
> >> I was thinking of something like:
> >>
> >> The exchange of information MUST result in the following information
> being available to the ICE agent:
> >>
> >> - Whether the remote peer supports ICE at all
> >> - What ICE options, if any, are supported
> >> - Whether the remote peer is Lite or Full
> >> - Whether the remote peer thinks it's the Initiating Agent or not
> >> - What candidates the remote peer wishes to make available
> >> - Whether an ICE restart is desired
> > Looks ok, but I am not sure what mean by the 4th, regarding thinking
> it's the initiating agent or not.
> >
> >
>
> The spec says that the initiating agent will take the CONTROLLING role if
> both parties are Full ICE implementations, or if both parties are Lite
> implementations. This means that it has to know that it's the initiating
> agent.
>
> In cases like Offer/Answer (without glare), it's simple to see which one
> is initiating. In cases with 3rd party control (both parties get called for
> setup), chat-line systems (both parties initiate a join) or protocols where
> glare is possible, something has to make the decision on which side has the
> Initiator role.
>
> I'd prefer to abandon the Initiator concept, and say that the exchange of
> information should give back the information to each about whether they
> should try to take the Controlling role, but that may be a larger rewrite.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ice mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>