IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Fri, 24 August 2012 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 327A921F8705 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.914
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.914 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.315, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AjipVWZGeeWf for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA67C21F86EC for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:56:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbky2 with SMTP id y2so521484lbk.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=TDTV6aOw28vghvfz7L/Qqm+3mRlMvAYJYGENqc9tU5I=; b=UTaTdpvATL0vsO1/3miNk/6zrxQ0/873j4M8YPeeSX25Mpsnq2MHIoRvaM+mgyxyr8 6uMZ5Rrd7LFMLcwf1wGi5Gu+Dw8NhyQXsmmE/X87zzszr6fRBqrAa8pSudyKsV7bmCJR fMtnjOhIE0lBs9euQwRQuLT1OeqHYlnhaKlYf4OmA1PZSgAjMCTr0HFsXBerGXkcUdrB LVR/Hg41tfGjlx6E5Ef50nOUt4D9vtUFB/DEJV7Z+q6Q2Rqf+OuLkXq3SC0hrwoF9o0s UTZv5DSKnBigvxnUMEMu5nfoafzjoyzeGLKJ21tl4iv0/BwwBvk11C/KqAK731vB0UdQ YgLw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.83.97 with SMTP id p1mr2966747lby.94.1345827369588; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.41.193 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNkkH93ybuMWoFg-ddKWnRgdn2Vgyb50W21A2GoMWxw6Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBMzgAs=hK38hCjS7t6yLjkTydS2TQUb8R3rBbRKGakVdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVBBAH=HCkn_cksBs_9A_hm=VfFwcTtvOM3C7XB2h2KTA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMFUFjU=FQo5LeJrcMfajeae0j+PWw5U2g5dUQNcJLWaA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXiL3_U+Hci9ooDqBCsoV3KF8pwgcf9zbuN6EKZkK+aiQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNkkH93ybuMWoFg-ddKWnRgdn2Vgyb50W21A2GoMWxw6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:56:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnXQ25ZYNqeO+=FsYDR3aNvFS2zvrKWGs5o=h8m+Eq=Y+Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:56:12 -0000

On 24 August 2012 09:42, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> I'm not following what you are saying here. Ignoring the question of
> non-trickle (i.e., strict RFC 5245) endpoints, if you are a trickle endpoint
> that gives up under conditions when RFC 5245 says you should give
> up, you are likely to have problems.

If you are a trickle endpoint, then you are not implementing RFC 5245.
 RFC 5245 might not explicitly exclude the possibility, but it is
certainly implicit, as the problems you cite in your email attest.

What I think we want to with trickle is to create a new method.  That
method is only like RFC 5245 to the extent that it shares some
properties: the good parts.

> You don't think it's worth writing
> that down somewhere more permanent/definitive than an email
> to the mailing list?

Only if it addresses a specific interoperability need does it need to
be in an RFC.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email