IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rtcweb] What is consent?

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Wed, 12 September 2012 17:55 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 1D2A421F863F for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:55:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, 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 l5b3WxY2Rfki for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f44.google.com [209.85.215.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 587DC21F85B8 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:55:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lahm15 with SMTP id m15so1410489lah.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:55:50 -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=drH32xjC9qx4jsHv8Jp+cSPRaV85KVyqCmNwFN4q2O0=; b=p7OX1pZkBX4LISVbH9quNU/BY6VxZYMljKWVgH8jiQWidFzpxmI/fUfJxoadoIEEmK WoIulTelb/pu8ECTg9dgKTsNuvJK4MNXYoksJvhbQIk5PR2NpeOaoMpXQeOuyLpK95nM tYmQIMVdHyW65gmyyU1SS/9iQiux5TmTs1HITgE8ONjGK1D4hPlhtEPAGI6zEAl8y2oE XsHSbC3Y6gxmFKeRYZuoUfa502ZHB/4QOmoyVmzkpuUK979X/ampE/c5cjbLk5XWoP1d zxPh2DZXE2LE0963Eq5zL18yg44GVvL/qKCAQefVPsGv/1JfJjdAJrc3EvE3NMZuLrD9 BrkQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.114.3 with SMTP id jc3mr19848319lab.11.1347472550332; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.1.36 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:55:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <0c2301cd910d$7f4bd150$7de373f0$@com>
References: <CABkgnnXAPZ5BN=CUwYdEpHKbCLBxctqpONL==QWf_WwgrNEK_A@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNnoQwJu1MYSW=6q6pkrgXSPSUtVyOsngrPP6b8GaegdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnUNhka8OJsiNCV5iOvU_cGyvt_y8=DN6qnud3Xr-dy1iQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNddHgHnkZ5b2N4i-np3WuY51f6WHkBdT5mHBsieLMDow@mail.gmail.com> <BLU169-DS48211D4056CB291285DD4393930@phx.gbl> <08c301cd9076$a2405c40$e6c114c0$@com> <BLU401-EAS3820748E547AD9D27E1220893920@phx.gbl> <DA165A8A2929C6429CAB403A76B573A5146A00B9@szxeml534-mbx.china.huawei.com> <BLU401-EAS46055078032CCFBDDFD2C2B93920@phx.gbl> <CABkgnnUMcFx15qytVNo2G67CX84TLZ_29UMB5EzJ=WqRF5o1GQ@mail.gmail.com> <0c2301cd910d$7f4bd150$7de373f0$@com>
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 10:55:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnUMsoOT954Jgd=jq6jjrhLV0uqSL6R4148mYtFMPG-JaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] What is consent?
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: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 17:55:52 -0000

On 12 September 2012 10:39, Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> wrote:
> The volume of data is separate from USE-CANDIDATE, though.  ICE does
> not currently have a way to indicate bandwidth.

Yes.

> There was a bandwidth extension for TURN, but it did not achieve
> working group consensus and is not in the TURN RFC.  There is
> a bandwidth extension to ICE that Microsoft documents and I believe
> use in their products, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc339480,
> MS-ICE2BWM and MS-TURNBWM.

There are two bandwidth-related things in use.  One is related to
bandwidth estimation and not really pertinent to this.  The other
potentially relevant one is the bandwidth parameter (the one that
never reached consensus) is used to manage bandwidth for relay
allocations.

The latter is interesting to me, particularly if that parameter can be
applied to ICE.  There are some gotchas that need careful
consideration, particularly around this area of having consent on
multiple valid candidate pairs.

--Martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email