Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?

Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> Thu, 20 March 2014 14:54 UTC

Return-Path: <dwing@cisco.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 C7B121A046A for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 07:54:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 R0FeohlJVZwY for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 07:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtv-iport-4.cisco.com (mtv-iport-4.cisco.com [173.36.130.15]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70B7C1A03EF for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 07:54:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=835; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1395327249; x=1396536849; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=j2iEXSDFpmZixOk91v3X6AqG6EEh87v1yEznoI/X8F8=; b=G39foDTGKTKLSO/XUs1bVsZZLWgaJL6NT5tWqksJ1XDdilqtQLKoziBy lZPQCKSWUow83/BnAUVzpcZF4ODdgkh25y4nlsWWgVvAoNRR6MI7B0Ogn TXUHHinNF00SSyd66wbmDPqgtufZo8olCxSLUumzp4S43/J20qvTZOq3Y Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAJsAK1OrRDoG/2dsb2JhbABZgwbDYYEYFnSCJQEBAQMBeQULC0ZXBhOHcQfPaBeOMjMHgySBFASJUo51kjCDTR2BLCQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,695,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="108541481"
Received: from mtv-core-1.cisco.com ([171.68.58.6]) by mtv-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2014 14:54:09 +0000
Received: from sjc-vpn3-1362.cisco.com (sjc-vpn3-1362.cisco.com [10.21.69.82]) by mtv-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s2KEs5HV027493; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:54:08 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5329BA17.7080701@viagenie.ca>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 07:54:08 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <BA544098-72C9-42AD-B180-5F177D053DA5@cisco.com>
References: <CAOJ7v-0Hw0NFs_avsB2Z8do21BCws2LRZSeSh6HP0t455SPXyw@mail.gmail.com> <B6836FFA-867A-4CBF-9855-D265425EC5E1@cisco.com> <CAOqqYVE=i2L7FxGgKuV0DVaaxYOPnxzSEbDoq0_4Tqapna575g@mail.gmail.com> <5329BA17.7080701@viagenie.ca>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/dszuEFs5n03HCv09lE1AV620tF4
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Transports: RFC 4941 support?
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: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 14:54:21 -0000

On Mar 19, 2014, at 8:39 AM, Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:

> Le 2014-03-19 03:02, Harald Alvestrand a écrit :
>> I'd like to be silent on the issue, since which IPv6 addresses to prefer
>> is likely to be a matter of system policy. Trying to override system
>> policy in an application specific profile usually leads to sadness.
> 
> What would be useful to mention IMHO is that ICE restart should be used
> to gracefully handle the issue of IP address expiry, of which temporary
> IPv6 addresses are a frequently-encountered example.

When a temporary address expires, existing sockets bound that address should continue working with that expired address -- have you found otherwise on any OS, such that we would need ICE Mobility for temporary address expiration?

-d