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

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Sat, 28 October 2017 17:48 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 353E513FCAF for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:48:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 196iIciuNvvC for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22a.google.com (mail-qt0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24F4813FCAE for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id n61so11965153qte.10 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:48:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gYWFLBpOgLdA99sLHx793BV6754UhYdMcJMMgOhXkz4=; b=nzA/V+39cveygN/m0VXMO43xwkIck3RIaB07mAXFrbhCraF+c3j14UYwbFwJPlXGjZ Owcr7FgS1r3sulcisffO+6SMT4f23WyUQIX+TcLdgYMMzkBqgPeoRkkD8bvzAhXNG04i 0lU62Hav+exed5Kgrv6hTMRrLazLFbY3ssLo1dVJ2x2/kKMVwm36ViEll61LG5YQ/ptC E/O7EPMAjdAZaZDbTUPm1V5qO3Fgb+DEvJ3nbKHt1aCLhIrQ6MnaB1HfBncrpNvCBOfr DBqafcIEPDvlTW+wzO4h0DA76DuK8BYaCwnlqReXzmbcYRPHPXKQdbtWuNp9qyFbHaC2 htrw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gYWFLBpOgLdA99sLHx793BV6754UhYdMcJMMgOhXkz4=; b=ClRET+Ry2psZxVRcgWHo9DrL2QThxdMRZQ3w7zn/z84dqZwy4MQxuDPlfQYSWXq/X5 pmtgPVqyfV+iuztPqX/wl+XlKKyKjHH4yhbYjvKtKsvEvQEHT1hkJG4j+itt+wxlXK9W 7fSeomiiPhOkvz5V1ol9XmqP3net/5FW5rVmI1tD/stTfzNSVIq8gCbyQZynGoewBtAJ J48TMFOr2RHKPZ+cNDsN1Ipy1fSbg8V/jMss1bsQFKv37N+gCZaneYyU5bAoxP/fQOkJ vVWRRoJUm8xmwa5O8c30/XzNNze36QO3GAj0XSqI3ylTOu3sl1U8QGA+r1kdym8fr5HI kFxA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXdgex8K97iaEfM3PKOeXUlL5Byp57g1PXL6+3zvJJHBBsjulVu 5VWZbMBq/icn9TNqt7BCXZ7g+9kQXjERd2Se48oNeQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+T047GSWItb2DHAMtRIG81qy9BY70zHE+9WmGAf8VEOubF4ynQqyvUpZOuCajvbQdE2eYa8ejuIqfH9EY1COK0=
X-Received: by 10.200.43.8 with SMTP id 8mr6738413qtu.193.1509212885025; Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:48:05 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <66220024-e08b-aa61-ffe2-3c279c377a34@alvestrand.no> <D60A5C84.23E43%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <f4da1671-f7bd-e153-04da-a0462316798d@alvestrand.no> <7594FB04B1934943A5C02806D1A2204B5635D4B5@ESESSMB109.ericsson.se> <1cb09b36-54db-afc1-ff5f-4a37c1701a23@alvestrand.no>
In-Reply-To: <1cb09b36-54db-afc1-ff5f-4a37c1701a23@alvestrand.no>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 17:47:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUE3_f5EWWV7cj-ggyzz4kgaBhsDimNvY__mJw9rMFDzBA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
Cc: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>, "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11353eb6e77a90055c9f0156"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/YsU6xqo8Fm1CD6-0KXm9pbNwZh0>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 17:48:08 -0000

I looked through all of Harald's suggestions and I reviewed the PRs since
then, and it appears to me that most, if not all, of Harald's suggestions
have been incorporated into the doc.

Do the two of you agree, or is there something still missing that we need
to do?

On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 12:32 PM Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>
wrote:

> Leaving in only the one with something left to write...
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ice mailing list
> Ice@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>