Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

Nils Ohlmeier <> Fri, 07 September 2018 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6664130DF4 for <>; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 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_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WxJsoT6Fn2na for <>; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::634]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0379B130E7B for <>; Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b30-v6so4755442pla.0 for <>; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=kxRleG4LVbpgAlBe0LjjqlFMcVzliWpF4CkmmCyAM6k=; b=Ffyo5oA4o1sFCYLeQTNx+h38wZD1DzSQYWQZy6gexp2+tJKTuiS4LQGvBmLFdO4X3t QKLlfLNhleAMNLTBoBndtM5ecVsiAqmgPmvO3PzldIDxVCgu6zWIR5947M4IkxeYKgJx 4nHbYhyXYuV3ZGeoDmSSxU51OxQ9ToACo7KgQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=kxRleG4LVbpgAlBe0LjjqlFMcVzliWpF4CkmmCyAM6k=; b=s/HF0pE5/ugxoHh9CcxhOIzv2mo+rGrrXCCa8LFyWMzcdhXg+W6yIVXtu2opeTn0AK 30NOqhXCPM9PgeYRas5+HMSFO9zqB56wHZKWCZ+dpKZN7wbgAF0zbXlcicQku3QO7/kJ l3grzFLKHzfkD+giQUgz/4E6QXvTqFE/rqIbRus/YbvOS6LdwYCZontIJXrLFodo6hYL jJkREB+WCNT2aL/OiDZ6eUj0/n0WWyZURij0QlZ1Zxu9G4YKxd1tQn9CNgf8uKlZBCOS b8FYWgwqq4Neq6BMsOb2NtlEqeIkg3qwQf5iCivmOOFcJBGhPiFFdgraZ2KNJg/j2jQ7 qtmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51BcntuemyngCGqnJZ9nT+trDH3WvWwf0IvVC+uLyoEdsoCcAnLz YESwdohRyYvoaVqbtYTMXQqw9w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdY6euAXdtgztKFykgQya1FaAk2IbnJdNMEicf3YHXOjDMTdcWrUoBk85zGToZmT4BUZiIeZkg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b688:: with SMTP id c8-v6mr9757113pls.114.1536350166255; Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:56:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4600:3f31:f1b4:fa2c:dab4:bde9? ([2601:647:4600:3f31:f1b4:fa2c:dab4:bde9]) by with ESMTPSA id s14-v6sm14010290pfj.105.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Sep 2018 12:56:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nils Ohlmeier <>
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_08F6DABC-271D-484E-82C5-CB686D533A45"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.1\))
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 12:56:02 -0700
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <>, Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, RTCWeb IETF <>
To: Christer Holmberg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.1)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2018 19:56:12 -0000

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 11:25, Christer Holmberg <> wrote:
>> dig not indicate an improvement of connectivity rates. I did not see results from others that did. Some of the early test results from
>> others that drove this work were not reproducible in our testing. The one thing I think most people did find is that the more out of
>> sync the pacing of the two agents was, the worse the connectivity was. But all of this is water under the bridge, we have old and
>> new ice, people can use either. What we are talking about here is what is the minimum bar for WebRTC 1.0
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but WebRTC 1.0 does use trickle, and does not use aggressive nomination.

Sorry but that is not correct. Firefox does use aggressive nomination. Chrome (and everyone who copies their full stack including their ICE implementation) does not. I’m not aware of any normative language for any of the WebRTC specs demanding to use full nomination only.

  Nils Ohlmeier