Re: [rtcweb] Feedback for draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates-03

Nils,

When writing ice-sip-sdp we have considered two possible options when using
FQDN in ICE candidate lines:

1. Same FQDN as in default ICE candidate
2. IPv4/IPv6 address values "0.0.0.0"/"::" and port value of "9"

To deal with both, ice-sip-sdp specifies, that when verifying ICE support,
both options should be accepted.

Since RFC 5245 provided no guidance regarding handling FQDN in default
candidate, both options would likely cause ICE support verification
failures. Using FQDN in default candidate also raised the question of
address family and address type in c= line since neither is specified in
the ICE candidate.

This being said, FQDN in c= line is allowed by RFC 4566:

connection-field =    [%x63 "=" nettype SP addrtype SP
                         connection-address CRLF]
                         ;a connection field must be present
                         ;in every media description or at the
                         ;session-level

; sub-rules of 'c='
connection-address =  multicast-address / unicast-address
unicast-address =     IP4-address / IP6-address / FQDN / extn-addr

Not being able to handle FQDN in the c= line is technically a bug.

Best Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount

On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 1:26 AM Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have concerns regarding the current recommendations in
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates-03 regarding the handling of IP
> addresses in the “c=“ lines.
>
> Section 3.1.2.3 recommends to use mDNS for the connection-address. I think
> we should reconsider this advice as some SPD parsers handle parsing
> failures differently depending on line type.
> In case of Firefox a parsing failure for the connection line is treated as
> terminal failure. Where parsing failures for a= lines are expected, as
> these might contain unknown new features.
>
> Section 4.3 mentions that hostnames in ICE candidates can result in ICE
> failures, but it does not cover backward compatibility in regards to the c=
> line.
>
> My recommendation is to change the draft so that it recommends to always
> use a fixed value, for example IP6 ::1 in all c= lines, if mDNS is in use.
> Obviously it could also be recommended to use an IP4 address instead. The
> important point is only to use the same IP consistently in all c= lines and
> across all instances.
> I think the advantage of this is better backwards compatibility, and it
> will not reveal any more details about the user agent compared to using
> mDNS names in c= lines.
>
> Best regards
>   Nils Ohlmeier
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>