Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] [MMUSIC] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238

Justin Uberti <> Thu, 27 September 2018 23:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AEF7130E7D for <>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:21:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.5 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_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ikcxV2h8eqpt for <>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:21:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d36]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E63A7130EEC for <>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id y3-v6so3094657ioc.5 for <>; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:21:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=C/ZNM7lRselywSWIJv3uPUKxLLEvYwL/Bby0bpTXuwM=; b=PEw6di1fT+YHr0gwFlBx5B8vZ53DKxYTj8teApxNHNN4Z4/B6LF8lfyYDU0o41Vpl+ 7SHjiUn2kbYd+twZRy6lFZExqyjlm53Sm5DY4hqnZtWa8jAOTKoGi2ykA+7RtVrzsQ+F rop3EtdtbVJ35IY2uCp3GyMElQa0+tUSKTPiHhTPUa0CXXmfxW/jui2RoRE5o/7FDUx4 Gq8VIUGOusV4JdmOlUxxUcRi1kjNUO3u2y99gkLZRCkPO/Jqn9JCIuyp9rDrFxSsYcIb Sp05i43ZE7wa3iLhD4KmYEXiL5U8LBtNPj9MMq5g4vEe6KtLz0MB2UlD10iPWmZxp98N QsuQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=C/ZNM7lRselywSWIJv3uPUKxLLEvYwL/Bby0bpTXuwM=; b=jJX8cFeaoGoxk2PTcJiDjyTMF/ugNmM9hIfhGNDkWrecuIvJ7ay0isXqT4dlwi3UCz b9ZkU7T+q11LKNzwLTfkV4QJUN+g7sk7nqYjXqWBLiE3u3AE+wvvHKPLkx2u1qox0ODK 3PAg79VB4XAYq8ir64GWh0Q137De8vLCfCj1JOeztC+tdvrAp5Kpzj7tjT0wmcei5/uT O3gc24ErFeT6UnggsuKloLfyYEngfnfrF1lFRT1mH5OEF3MZG6Dy8nbSWuYatVCU4VqU QIAIUnlo2LT8WPh7PWYrUMh2bVRC81xcTK+B3Jo2yO7Wdlpzc1o3KiYxLwPiQsSrx1/U wj/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfoigsk/7+bf/aBv+rvFmMik62/RxFZqFwsw6bhU/vdF/nuJTmbfk iaIyk3XvelMQGRv3Mk7IB2+hpML4DjxzbvaWn4MXhg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV609yGctu70nystnKnYZJaszxmv15771Lj8bINCY32kRhu2DHj2WdPe5q7kPFjEae50imdF/9Hm9yAVOrr/qEVE=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:39c3:: with SMTP id g186-v6mr10970700ioa.32.1538090459711; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:20:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Justin Uberti <>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:20:47 -0700
Message-ID: <>
Cc: Cullen Jennings <>,,,,, RTCWeb IETF <>, Christer Holmberg <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007c20230576e297d1"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] [MMUSIC] [art] [clue] ICE, ICE-bis, and Cluster 238
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 23:21:07 -0000

I agree with Peter. Chrome's implementation is already closer to 8445 than
5245, so I don't see any issues associated with snapping this cluster to
8445 (aside from the work involved).

On that topic, note that JSEP will need a few more changes than just the
addition of the 8445 reference and note; the examples will have to be
updated, as will the logic regarding generation of offers and answers and
their parsing (to deal with the new ice-option). These changes will be
modest but probably will need to be done by the authors.

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 9:52 PM Peter Thatcher <pthatcher=>; wrote:

> I'm late to the discussion, and reading through it, it seems that we have
> a lot of back and forth without addressing Cullen's root issue.  Let me see
> if I understand Cullen's root issue correctly.  I think it's something like:
> 1.  Cisco has existing code that it wants to call "WebRTC 1.0 compliant"
> without changing to be compliant with 8445.
> 2.  Cisco has existing code that it wants to continue to interoperate with
> endpoints, especially Chrome, even as they make changes to become 8445
> compliant.  And they don't want to have to test against old and new
> versions.
> Cullen, is that accurate?
> OK, so some of my thoughts:
> 1.  I don't think there is any interop risk here at all related to
> timings.  If you're worried about the drop in minimum check interval going
> from 20ms to 5ms, don't.  Just because the spec allows for going that low
> doesn't mean endpoints will.  And if they do, they'll do it carefully.
> Endpoints can and should still choose a value that works best regardless of
> the min in the spec.  For example, Chrome is still using an interval of
> 48ms (we're not in a rush to lower it, but we have non-browser endpoints
> that do go lower).  And if we roll out a lower value, it will be via
> experiments or opt-ins and carefully tracked to make sure connectivity
> rates don't drop.  If any problem were found in practice, it would be
> quickly reverted.
> 2.  I don't think there is any interop risk here related to nomination
> either.
> Chrome's default behavior has never been compliant to any spec anyway, and
> it's never been an issue.  And like with ping intervals, any changes to
> implementations will be done slowly and carefully.
> 3.  I don't think it really matters to major implementations what the
> dependency graph looks like.  Whether some point to 5245 and others to 8445
> or if all of them point to 8445, it doesn't matter, implementations will
> behave the same either way.  Chrome, for example will adjust timings as
> works well in practice (perhaps someday to below 20ms interval) regardless
> of which RFCs point to 8445 and which point to 5245.  If interop issues
> ever do come up, then they can be fixed.  And that has nothing to do with
> which RFCs point to 5245 and which point to 8445.
> 5.  You're going to need to test against different versions of different
> browser no matter what the RFC references are.  ICE timings and nominations
> seem like the least of your testing problems.  But on the flip side, Chrome
> (and I assume other browsers) have been very slow and careful when making
> changes to the ICE code.
> 6.  FlexICE should go a long way to putting the web app in control of the
> ICE behavior.  So if you are worried about what browsers will do with ICE,
> I suggest supporting the FlexICE effort.  In fact, it's the result of your
> proposal at TPAC in 2017 for wanting to have lower-level of control of
> ICE..  If we get that into all the browsers, you won't have to worry any
> more about any of this because you'll be in control (assuming you control
> the web app).
> Altogether, I don't see any reason to not reference 8445 everywhere, at
> least not any related to interop risk and web browsers.
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 9:37 AM Cullen Jennings <>; wrote:
>> On Sep 7, 2018, at 1:25 AM, Christer Holmberg <
>>>; wrote:
>> > Cisco has implemented stuff that is WebRTC 1.0 compliant without this
>> change. These gratuitous changes, years after the implementation were
>> coded, with no real benefit will ensure that we are not
>> > and will not become compliant with the RFC. It's unlikely we will
>> upgrade to the new ICE until it has real befits.
>> The main reason we did 8445 was because people had identified issues with
>> 5245. The work was driven mostly by the WebRTC community, including
>> yourself and the Chrome people (or, at least the Google people), and one of
>> the reason it took time to finalize 8445 was because you (among others)
>> wanted to make sure we get things right (by making network measurements
>> etc). Are you now saying all those changes bring no benefit? Did we all
>> waste our time?
>> Our testing, which we do not share, dig not indicate an improvement of
>> connectivity rates. I did not see results from others that did. Some of the
>> early test results from others that drove this work were not reproducible
>> in our testing. The one thing I think most people did find is that the more
>> out of sync the pacing of the two agents was, the worse the connectivity
>> was. But all of this is water under the bridge, we have old and new ice,
>> people can use either. What we are talking about here is what is the
>> minimum bar for WebRTC 1.0
>> > It is doubtful Justin will want to implement the 8445 mechanisms of
>> supporting both new and old ICE. Instead, we will move to say "works
>> with Browser X version Y or later." We have watched at W3C as it moved to
>> be that unless chrome does it, it rare that it becomes a standard.
>> > Right here I am watching how the stuff IETF defines will be less
>> relevant than the issue of what chrome implements.
>> What exactly would Justin have to change?
>> For us, the largest part is having to test for both old and new - it’s
>> not easy to do good automated testing for ICE.
>> _______________________________________________
>> mmusic mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Ice mailing list