Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-02: Clone comments

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Fri, 12 October 2012 06:00 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@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 49D6421F842C for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:00:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.976
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HwpdpK3hkah3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BB1F21F844F for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id s14so2307493qcg.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record; bh=K/ldI5uX/qacjirZQFAF9336h29/kY3RKA2waYmMZtk=; b=BoDEDH93gQUUBXM7ZRjysw66lKkG7mQ0iZcD4fg/AlFEAStWjg7RDhdo5y2TPVXmuz NadLF0mVHvIbHXui1k5QdgOw4QdHJrcxj9rWugoby96QbhtKQBgYZyp7gleCwztY3L5e GDx40dFacTwR1vY/rlFoScImGGVIfEpQbje6nHbabL8BtT1N07mICi23RvXFW/Z+Idq4 wp420XAUBohfv/AeyY/JWlBtr7gvVfa7aRPe5eIYYwsd+DcCQtax9jMEWPVM+0wjPwtt 7WjRdJ53319RGqs6IhfT/MwgkyY5PBpTGVmVHKpASldM5gE+LMdhq2C67/sNNAxqXGjF mTFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:x-system-of-record:x-gm-message-state; bh=K/ldI5uX/qacjirZQFAF9336h29/kY3RKA2waYmMZtk=; b=HGmCVfICcyTKzETxmuLHyuJQbRzhWLAarlI0uiv4Gxv1R5+phhK58hL1aoZ7WGYfXI RucuswKbhGI7IWTgoCEZ/G4AF4WlBLvoV2DNI3Ax08lWpP6Wck1RSXnT6WJ4H5YslNT4 0VxUgOk++RLgIhKbJUFOx4dH5lvBLnf2sPLJ/TYzJphX2DKVRL/0COCeauIW9HrmagAm nsJ+k1boCn1+XPaVR0QqrCXt43IvED4D462wPIetTlktxmU8u8PwBHfVvp0yAzdQmjtB qxbr6Ykr243a0rUPY/m9a60G7duwPjs4RtU06TCLjMzYIbYSsXtvz51CNyuoWJ2gprzI i1pQ==
Received: by 10.229.198.76 with SMTP id en12mr1486838qcb.107.1350021604554; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 23:00:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.216.194 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD8106CDF884@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
References: <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340A7BCD49@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <506D73CF.80701@alvestrand.no> <7F2072F1E0DE894DA4B517B93C6A0585340A7BCD92@ESESSCMS0356.eemea.ericsson.se> <E17CAD772E76C742B645BD4DC602CD8106CDF884@NAHALD.us.int.genesyslab.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:59:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-1YnjrbhhfHUud4aVPoSGdHFyNegh=Jc0m5+_u6733D4A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016369c8d402db72e04cbd66684
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkDw6bskrR+IUKe/ehbmaWAh9OX04IIPtdXVyr3bhwNYaMiRni2K2k0DhW5S8O7dIXBKWeoKhu1qrMQpojTvdu8E4AaSUOuBQUeoTOFpHCtnB8dolmQXireRB5tKwVMyKVYxqvohUsfMV2yVlSVqFZ5MYSiQyV6LQegvO+TibtwvRKOOF/swjmZTa6B247qNAQTHfw2
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-02: Clone comments
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 12 Oct 2012 06:00:06 -0000

The preceding paragraph of 4.7.2 mentions that each clone may end up with
its own peer-reflexive candidates (as would be the case if the local NAT
was endpoint-dependent). So while the local addresses and
server-reflexive/relay addresses should be the same, the overall set of
local candidates for each clone may be different.

I will try to clarify this for the next draft.


On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Jim Barnett <Jim.Barnett@genesyslab.com>wrote;wrote:

> If the local address isn’t the same, we shouldn’t call it a ‘clone’.  I
> think that people will expect everything to be the same on a ‘clone’.  ***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> **-          **Jim******
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Christer Holmberg
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 04, 2012 7:57 AM
> *To:* Harald Alvestrand; rtcweb@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-02: Clone comments****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,****
>
>  ****
>
> >> A couple of comments on the cloning stuff in JSEP:****
>
> >>** **
>
> >> Q1. The document doesn’t say how the cloning is performed. If that is
> outside the scope of JSEP, and belongs to the W3C API spec, I think it
> should be mentioned.****
>
> >> ****
>
> >> Q2. The text in section 4.7.2 says:****
>
> **>> ****
>
> >>                “As a result of this cloning, the application will end
> up with N****
>
> >>                parallel sessions, each with a local and remote
> description and their****
>
> >>                own local and remote addresses.”****
>
> ≫****
>
> >> I think the “own local addresses” wording is a little misleading, as
> each clone will share the same local address.****
>
> >** **
>
> > Not sure what to say here.****
>
> >** **
>
> > I can see multiple ways to implement this - some will end up with
> different local ports, some won't.****
>
>  ****
>
> Earlier in the same section, the text says:****
>
>  ****
>
>         “Since the *clone uses the same local description as its*****
>
> *      &nb! sp;  parent*, creating a clone will fail if it is not
> possible to reserve****
>
>          the same resources for the clone as have already been reserved by
> the****
>
>          parent.”****
>
>  ****
>
> > If the non-local (reflexive?) candidates are allocated using STUN on a
> per-port basis, addresses could be different too.****
>
>  ****
>
> My assumption, and understanding of the text, is that a clone is a… eeeeh…
> clone – meaning that the local address is the same :)****
>
>  ****
>
> Regards,****
>
>  ****
>
> Christer****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>