Re: [rtcweb] Is rtcweb the right place for draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates?

Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> Thu, 04 July 2019 04:33 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@google.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BDD1202AD for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 21:33:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 wJrWx3mgO8Do for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 21:33:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vs1-xe35.google.com (mail-vs1-xe35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C7C7F120176 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jul 2019 21:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vs1-xe35.google.com with SMTP id r3so1192693vsr.13 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 21:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ixNBAJcsk2XvhVLHahXKN+NXOlosxx3iYgRlVYeaWgs=; b=KBfuNebNULIY+1WkoHWIu+oo8ouqqhF1q7je3YUTd/RLn7vpJCpEwll9a0ENaXfA1C 0GpsOd7rQGfx54PyR/zi1G7145WUIdapELW28E/U/PX7a9iQmvbX1yDFiWqjLihtrLn4 a+Ud6jo/rcf0tR9DG71DwjkwZYnU2SpHs7ldYihinSSynqkcx0uz/qwMXIsMTBGLnryl bSpqD4xExqrysIHlK0/TMUAvbui412q7xuOYcR7U4kZLqALEELwyE5UU0ciV4pePgDJI ieB3FvROabd0L1exZmxofOAani7s5b+VecKQujq+u/SLPY5Zomzc05tk//ERHA/kg4BE oI0Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ixNBAJcsk2XvhVLHahXKN+NXOlosxx3iYgRlVYeaWgs=; b=mmPK9nWYASWNBcBYZqTVPEcTlCH890xpFIQdSF9xtuljabVDYV4XPB6LKUlhrB60r5 99gYkXUQo7v40kk9y9GbZqw+96f27r9wNdTNYNnZd9GNOl6CeDg0ObAAvupoltY9P1il hXxLRbBABpxFu8rc+QTEqSYYVTiPCmex+gBExFER/gKzEaenL5leKI5I2yjkBoYg6Te+ MXKdEQ37A4sEHpbOsXnxBLYGNS7ATwJwLiIGbuqUvASuSPK2IJWE633gm7YNMw4C8Myw 1+2SfxTSw86F4NUHH6Pz1hYg+JmM+6hWQeCB2FQXU+v8mFqH9gOVJlv6Mkffchd1527i QHMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWMWB0oQF81HIX5fVaA9u8HcTdpA4sj2z9XlPbIpp30W4pcM4j6 6ktsz6ztrOnrQm+jz3QMlffmcQN65WkuVjNR69u6hg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqy44+y0cUktkiSUmwQKaKTpd7BmnW6UwI1yOloQcM6S3w0l3YJHLsP55BotoO71uYPyC52607HOLTgWJz6+ro8=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:ff0a:: with SMTP id v10mr21896912vsp.1.1562214810474; Wed, 03 Jul 2019 21:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <b03853a4-1006-4da0-d52f-9e7462a2cd0c@alvestrand.no> <D80CECAF-B520-40A2-BFBB-E39B73BA943D@sn3rd.com> <CAD5OKxsd-SE8VpwFgto3DLbabs+9O+cHMucy1+Cep7tCJQR6+w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-2XrND6YWqo2tEiDbs7TZpEoiP+MGBAk2aF7hfoMiGk0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtSzOfnN8WrV-duwwfmwa+VJX_3HACiXU43Xeym25GQaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAOJ7v-1pKuvNfuPVqJQKj1d0U8Z7JH9aqNU0DkNDMYvec7jyUQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAD5OKxtmjw9_MeOb_kYhhDBS5+YoJa7qLMCGsr2ROaZVHi+27w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD5OKxtmjw9_MeOb_kYhhDBS5+YoJa7qLMCGsr2ROaZVHi+27w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2019 21:33:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOJ7v-0Q5SMbQkKhDUYpsedb0nv=kkx-UNTAVeNauj9Mhi=ZLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com>
Cc: "rtcweb@ietf.org" <rtcweb@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d7b862058cd37a0f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtcweb/gaVmWRS-lNALREDXDDozgrIuHg4>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Is rtcweb the right place for draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates?
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 04 Jul 2019 04:33:35 -0000

On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:15 PM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:

> This direction was taken since mmusic got no feedback regarding the
> specifics of FQDN support. I did try to get mdns authors, including you, to
> participate in the discussion, since I was afraid this can be a problem,
> but no one responded at that time.
>

Sorry, I haven't been reading mmusic regularly lately and missed your
outreach.


> As it stands, there are significant issues with just putting FQDN in
> candidate. The gist of the issue is that due to things like DNS64 there is
> no way to enforce that FQDN will resolve to the same address family to
> which FQDN was originally pointed to. So, end points will end up either
> with different address families or with multiple addresses for the same
> candidate even when FQDN in candidate originally only pointed to a single
> IP. Connectivity checks will likely succeed on some of those address pairs,
> but figuring out priority for the candidate pairs becomes confusing and
> under-specified. No one wanted to discuss or deal with this before
> ice-sip-sdp was published so the current language was put in place.
>

I need to understand the DNS64 issue better, I'm not sure how this would
pose a problem in practice.


> I know the browsers are trying to address what they perceive is a
> significant issue, but I would think that current mdns draft is fairly raw
> and turning this option on is likely premature. It might lead to multiple,
> non-backwards compatible versions of this feature.
>

If anything, I think we've been too slow here. The initial mDNS draft was
posted over a year ago.

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:58 PM Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, that's unfortunate. I think this is a mistake, given that we are
>> about to throw the switch to enable mDNS for 100% of Chrome endpoints;
>> Chrome (and soon all browsers) will have to ignore ice-sip-sdp until this
>> extension spec is written.
>>
>> ice-sip-sdp isn't published yet, so it seems an update to that document
>> could still be a possibility. If that's not an option, putting forth #1 as
>> a specific extension that allows FQDN candidates to be generated in certain
>> situations seems like the right path.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 5:40 PM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Part of the problem is that mmusic have decided to punt on the FQDN
>>> support. In the current mmusic-ice-sip-sdp the final language that was
>>> included:
>>>
>>> <connection-address>:  is taken from RFC 4566 [RFC4566].  It is the IP
>>> address of the candidate, allowing for IPv4 addresses, IPv6 addresses, and
>>> fully qualified domain names (FQDNs).  When parsing this field, an agent
>>> can differentiate an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address by presence of a
>>> colon in its value - the presence of a colon indicates IPv6.  *An agent
>>> generating local candidates MUST NOT use FQDN addresses.  An agent
>>> processing remote candidates MUST ignore candidate lines that include
>>> candidates with FQDN *or IP address versions that are not supported or
>>> recognized.  *The procedures for generation and handling of FQDN
>>> candidates, as well as, how agents indicate support for such procedures,
>>> need to be specified in an extension specification.*
>>>
>>> So, at this point we have two options:
>>> 1. draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates can update ice-sip-sdp and
>>> define how FQDN candidates generated by mdns are handled
>>> 2. write a new draft in mmusic which defines FQDN handling
>>>
>>> In any case some sort of mmusic discussion is needed to reconcile this.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> _____________
>>> Roman Shpount
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:28 PM Justin Uberti <juberti@google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The problem this draft is trying to solve is fairly RTCWEB-specific. If
>>>> there are individual issues to resolve, we can send them out to mmusic for
>>>> discussion, but AFAIK no changes to existing ICE specs are needed.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:26 PM Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> Is rtcweb the right place for draft-ietf-rtcweb-mdns-ice-candidates?
>>>>> This entire draft seems to be ICE/SDP specific and not limited to rtcweb.
>>>>> Also, there are significant interop implications for this draft
>>>>> between browser and non-browser end points which probably warrant larger
>>>>> discussion outside of rtcweb group. I would think mmusic would be a much
>>>>> better place for this draft. I know there is an incentive to complete this
>>>>> draft quickly but this has a potential to break a lot of things (it already
>>>>> did break interop with almost every existing ICE implementation).
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> _____________
>>>>> Roman Shpount
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>>> rtcweb@ietf.org
>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>>>>>
>>>>