[rtcweb] ice options and jsep answers
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 26 September 2014 15:03 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3B71A6F9D for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 eTu5NPxztgD0 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:03:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x232.google.com (mail-la0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97C731A00D8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:03:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id el20so3006771lab.37 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=TTpCWzvpP9PyOF06QPwMJjwSH2qqfM9QCtpOPNqj4CM=; b=HEjCfi/9rpH7A6YA1Kr8lD7/k7Ob1lGMA9EcbmC3JkmvUoL+fiIzpS4LR5P5AKFlDV yeIqLaXT0oNH+4YR0yQ794kpPSSVvC3tqRShfvMF7nEdY8nMF9XOy/pKDq5fVHZn8UNo Jb5xQAdP1SD4Kd2GwZyU+DnLHTSl6NdIin0qF+syZsZEfHt3Ni7MMqFYjPq1CESKkils ofl3TrqHGUn989n1YKEzCV9l5Dd9RYhCgxXONP/hhn24VOszbjrwguyW1HHr0InNN5oT 0OdHVEvH5OUNeIz58gXvkdcOYqvZjqWM5GW6jE1WJg6f1J5M22baYEQfIbQZKDrmczMm 4GiQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.34.239 with SMTP id c15mr19745559lbj.64.1411743824796; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.25.166.75 with HTTP; Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:03:44 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:03:44 +0100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnX93YvTa7VX-GydiRMi7nBUDG0fdxTP4Y8SoViJmGcAxA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/Vu03Kq8qcDwl6WIOUQxbtl1Vc4Y
Subject: [rtcweb] ice options and jsep answers
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:03:48 -0000
Unknown ice options cause the suppression of aggressive nomination. This isn't a problem if the answerer receives this, but it is if the offerer does. If the application decides to wait for candidates to arrive, should we remove trickle from ice-options? On the offer, this probably doesn't help, and it is actually counterproductive, but when we generate answers, do we want to avoid suppressing aggressive nomination by removing this as the last candidate arrives? Or do we want to just rely on canTrickle? --Martin
- [rtcweb] ice options and jsep answers Martin Thomson