Re: [rtcweb] ICE-Mismatch and WebRTC

The fact that WebRTC implementations MUST ignore the address and port in
the c=/m= lines will be written into JSEP, S 5.6/5.7.

On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 1:04 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Emil Ivov <emcho@jitsi.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 07.07.14, 21:48, Roman Shpount wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Is it possible to run into ICE-Mismatch with WebRTC? Should we specify
> >>> that default candidate (c= and m= line based candidate) should be
> >>> ignored and thus mismatch check should not be performed?
> >>
> >>
> >> I guess running into an ICE mismatch with WebRTC is just as possible as
> >> with any other ICE implementation. I suppose the only difference would
> be
> >> that rather than falling back to 3264 semantics, WebRTC implementations
> will
> >> rather drop the session because without ICE, they wouldn't be able to do
> >> consent checks for it.
> >>
> >
> > My point was that WebRTC would never use 3264 semantics
>
> Indeed. This was also my point.
>
> > and use address from
> > c= and m= lines for any purpose, so why does it need to check that this
> > address is correct? Would it be more sensible just ignore whatever value
> > happen to be there?
>
> With the exception of trickle ICE's use of :: (or 0.0.0.0) an ICE
> mismatch indicates that there is an entity on the signalling path that
> is overwriting c= line addresses and m= line ports. The idea of
> dropping ICE here is that the infrastructure is likely performing
> Hosted NAT Traversal and latching so insisting on ICE is likely to
> lead to unexpected situations.
>
> > Or, better yet end point can generate an error instead
> > of generating a response with ice-mismatch.
>
> Agreed. Sending an answer with ice-mismatch means downgrading to basic
> 3264 and that doesn't make sense for WebRTC.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Emil
>
> --
> https://jitsi.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>