Re: [rtcweb] ICE-Mismatch and WebRTC

I suggest renaming JSEP draft to "SDP made simple".

--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
<ibc@aliax.net>
On Jul 11, 2014 6:08 PM, "Justin Uberti" <juberti@google.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>