Re: [rtcweb] JSEP-02: Clone comments

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:

> 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
>
>