Re: [rtcweb] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>>> Cisco has implemented stuff that is WebRTC 1.0 compliant without this change. These gratuitous 
>>> changes, years after the implementation were coded, with no real benefit will ensure that we are not
>>> and will not become compliant with the RFC. It's unlikely we will upgrade to the new ICE until it has real befits. 
>> 
>> The main reason we did 8445 was because people had identified issues with 5245. The work was driven 
>> mostly by the WebRTC community, including yourself and the Chrome people (or, at least the Google people), 
>> and one of the reason it took time to finalize 8445 was because you (among others) wanted to make sure we get 
>> things right (by making network measurements etc). Are you now saying all those changes bring no benefit? Did 
>> we all waste our time?
>
>Our testing, which we do not share, 

I am talking about the test results that were shared (by Google, if I remember correctly) at one of the IETF meetings, which we used to modify some timer values. I'd have to dig in the archives for the details, but you said we can't move the draft forward before we get those results, and I think we waited 1-2 meeting cycles from them.

Note that I am not blaming you for wanting to set values based on real-life experience - that's a good thing. I am just surprised that everything we did now seems like a waste of time.

> dig not indicate an improvement of connectivity rates. I did not see results from others that did. Some of the early test results from 
> others that drove this work were not reproducible in our testing. The one thing I think most people did find is that the more out of 
> sync the pacing of the two agents was, the worse the connectivity was. But all of this is water under the bridge, we have old and 
> new ice, people can use either. What we are talking about here is what is the minimum bar for WebRTC 1.0 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but WebRTC 1.0 does use trickle, and does not use aggressive nomination. Trickle is based on 8445, and aggressive nomination was deprecated in 8445. So, what exactly are you suggesting the minimum bar for WebRTC 1.0 should be? Some "profile" of 5245?
 
>>> It is doubtful Justin will want to implement the 8445 mechanisms of supporting both new and old ICE. Instead, we will move 
>>> to say "works with Browser X version Y or later." We have watched at W3C as it moved to be that unless chrome does it, it rare 
>>> that it becomes a standard.  
>>> Right here I am watching how the stuff IETF defines will be less relevant than the issue of what chrome implements. 
>>
>> What exactly would Justin have to change?
> 
> For us, the largest part is having to test for both old and new - it’s not easy to do good automated testing for ICE. 

So, against what spec do you test trickle? 

Regards,

Christer