Re: [rtcweb] Working Group Last Call for draft-uberti-rtcweb-rfc8829bis-01.txt

[Roman Shpount <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 1:41 AM Justin Uberti <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
>
>>
>> >1. Make subsequent offers valid initial offers. This means adding some
>> language explaining how the endpoint processing initial offer can detect
>> that m= lines cannot be unbundled. Even if we add this language it will
>> have backwards compatibility issues with anything that has not implemented
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don’t agree with that suggestion. Because, in that case we could have
>> done it from the beginning, as a general rule, without using port zero. But
>> there were reason we chose not to allow shared addresses (with non-zero
>> port values) in initial offers.
>>
>
> We did come up with a=bundle-only mechanism to ensure backwards
> compatibility, and none of us want to revisit that decision. However, I do
> think that it would be consistent with Postel's Principle for the answerer
> to properly handle the case where a 3PCC offer ends up with a shared
> address, rather than failing simply because the offer does not appear to be
> an initial offer.
>
>>
>>
In case of trickle ICE, would shared address be detected by the absence of
ICE ufrag and pwd in the bundled m= line definition?

Best Regards,
_____________
Roman Shpount