Re: [rtcweb] When are ICE candidates added to the SDP

On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 6:51 AM, Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>wrote;wrote:

>  On 05/12/2014 02:39 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Rauschenbach, Uwe (NSN - DE/Munich) <
> uwe.rauschenbach@nsn.com> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Eric, all,
>>
>>
>>
>> Is the consequence of “always trickle” that ICE candidates have to be
>> added by non-trickling applications via SDP manipulation?
>>
>> I consider this indeed quite inconvenient for non-trickling applications.
>>
>
>  So, my understanding was that we had agreed that no candidates would
> be available in the first CreateOffer() no matter how many candidates were
> in the pool.
>
>  The intent of this message is to ask if that is useful.
>
>
> If an application is written as
>
> 1) CreateOffer()
> 2) wait for the end of candidates callback
> 3) negotiate
>
> then I would think it might have trouble if all the candidates are present
> in the SDP, and therefore no callbacks were called.
> Solution: Always fire the end of candidates callback after calling the
> success callback, even if all candidates are in the SDP already.
>

So you mean:

1. CreateOffer()
2. success callback fires.
3. SetLocal()
4. onicecandidate(...)
5. onicecandidate(null)

Then later (w/ no changes to the MSTs)

6. CreateOffer()
7. success callback fires
8. SetLocal (????)
9. onicecandidate(null)

I believe this would be a change to the W3C API (not that this is
necessarily bad)

-Ekr

>

>  -Ekr
>
>   A way out would be that the SDP always contains the candidates
>> collected so far (as currently defined in the JSEP snippet cited),
>>
>> or that a switch in the API allows an application to configure the
>> behavior when adding ICE candidates.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Uwe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* rtcweb [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *ext Eric
>> Rescorla
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 8:52 AM
>> *To:* rtcweb@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* [rtcweb] When are ICE candidates added to the SDP
>>
>>
>>
>> See: https://github.com/rtcweb-wg/jsep/issues/11
>>
>>
>>
>> Section 3.4 reads:
>>
>>
>>
>> When a new ICE candidate is available, the ICE Agent will notify the
>>
>> application via a callback; these candidates will automatically be
>>
>> added to the local session description. When all candidates have
>>
>> been gathered, the callback will also be invoked to signal that the
>>
>> gathering process is complete.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, we agreed in London that we would do "always trickle", and
>>
>> that even if there were candidates available at the time when CreateOffer
>>
>> (because of candidate pooling) was called, they would not be included
>>
>> in the initial offer. Consider the following sequence of events.
>>
>>
>>
>> 0. pc = new RTCPeerConnection();
>>
>> 1. pc.AddStream(stream);
>>
>> 2. pc.CreateOffer();
>>
>> 3. CreateOffer callback fires with offer A, and you call
>> SetLocalDescription();
>>
>> 4. onicecandidate fires with candidate X.
>>
>> 5. pc.CreateOffer()
>>
>> 6. CreateOffer callback fires with offer B.
>>
>> 7. onicecandidate fires with null.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, in London, I think we agreed that offer A would have no candidates.
>>
>> The above text implies that if you were to examine localdescription prior
>>
>> to step #5 or at step #7 it would contain candidate X, and probably that
>> offer B would
>>
>> also contain candidate X.
>>
>>
>>
>> Note that it's quite inconvenient for non-trickle applications to never
>>
>> have any candidates in the SDP, especially after gathering is completed
>>
>> at step #7. However it also seems kind of inconsistent to only update the
>>
>> candidates after SetLocal() has been called.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing listrtcweb@ietf.orghttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
> --
> Surveillance is pervasive. Go Dark.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>