Re: [rtcweb] SDP_PRANSWER followed by SDP_OFFER scenario in JSEP

I'm a very confused on what type of forking (with ICE) use case people want to satisfy. 

I agree with you that PRANSWER does make things more complicated but I presented at several of the meetings about how things just don't work without it or something like it so I don't see how to avoid it. 

On May 9, 2012, at 12:34 AM, Ravindran, Parthasarathi wrote:

> Hi Justin,
>  
> Sorry for the delay in reply. There are two issues associated with this scenario:
>  
> Issue 1) SIP Forking : This is solved by peerconnection cloning
>  
> Issue 2)  UPDATE support within SIP early dialog in the non-forking scenario. Here, the cloning will not solve issue as the answerer originated the new offer during SDP_PRANSWER state . Issue 2 is the title of this mail thread.
>  
> IMO, SDP_PRANSWER will complicate the offer/answer state machine.
>  
> Thanks
> Partha
>  
>  
>  
> From: rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:rtcweb-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Justin Uberti
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 8:40 PM
> To: Christer Holmberg
> Cc: Randell Jesup; rtcweb@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [rtcweb] SDP_PRANSWER followed by SDP_OFFER scenario in JSEP
>  
> The conclusion on this thread seems to be that the right way to address this problem is via PeerConnection cloning, and that no changes are needed to the JSEP state machine. I'll work with Richard to figure out how we should extend JSEP to support cloning.
> 
> On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> >>>>You could also choose not to alert the remote user until the ICE procedures have finished - more or less using ICE with preconditions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Of course, that is going to trigger actions in STUN/TURN servers, even if the called party won't accept the call, but at least from a user
> >>>> experience perspective that is still better than lifting the hook, and having to wait for whatever-time-it-takes-for-ICE-to-finish seconds before one can start to talk.
> >>>
> >>> This also has a downside of disclosing user's IP to the caller without the user confirmation. For a lot of applications this can be serious security flaw.
> >>
> >> The client can still log when ICE procedures occur.
> >>
> >> Because, even if I wait until your phone starts to ring, most likely I would still get your IP address without user confirmation (speaking in SIP terms, phones normally don't ask for user permission before they send 18x with SDP), eventhough you would easier be made aware of that it happens.
> >
> > Another alternative is of course to do ICE with an SBC, and/or having an SBC doing ICE on behalf of you :)
> >
> >
> > This is true for SIP but was as far as I know was specifically designed around in WebRTC. WebRTC signaling server acts as B2BUA so any type of ringing notification goes through the web server and does not need to carry any type of client address information. The client address information is only provided
> > when SDP answer is sent or ICE negotiation is started.
> 
> Assuming you are only going to make user confirmation (read: accept calls) in cases where you absolutely sure that the caller isn't someone trying to get your IP address.
> 
> But, never the less, having a solution where I first have to give user confirmation, and then wait until I can start to talk, is probably something most people want to avoid. Depending upon, of course, how long the waiting time is.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christer
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>  
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb