Re: [rtcweb] [Ice] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12 - Information exchange requirements

[Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]>]

Den 19. okt. 2017 23:23, skrev Roman Shpount:
> Should this also include ice-ufrag, ice-pwd and remote-candidates?

Yes.

(candidates are in bullet #4, I'd forgotten the others)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> _____________
> Roman Shpount
> 
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Christer Holmberg
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
> wrote:
> 
>     I suggest to add the following text to section 2.8 (Usages of ICE):
> 
>     Each usage of ICE MUST define mechanisms for the ICE agents to
>     exchange the following information:
>     -       Whether the ICE agents supports ICE.</t>
>     -       What ICE options, if any, the ICE agents support.</t>
>     -       Whether an agent represents a Lite or Full ICE
>     implementation.</t>
>     -       Whether an agent assumes it is has the role of the
>     Initiating Agent.</t>
>     -       The ICE candidates that the ICE agent wants to make
>     available.</t>
>     -       Whether the ICE agent want to trigger an ICE restart.</t>
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Christer
> 
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: rtcweb [mailto:[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>] On Behalf Of Christer Holmberg
>     Sent: 19 October 2017 17:30
>     To: Harald Alvestrand <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>; [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     Subject: Re: [rtcweb] WGLC Review of draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-12 -
>     Information exchange requirements
> 
>     Hi Harald (and others),
> 
>     Do you think we should add a new section ("ICE using protocol
>     requirements", or something), or do you think the text fits in an
>     existing section?
> 
>     Section 4.3 already contains some requirements regarding candidate
>     exchange (the 5th bullet in your list), but I don't think the other
>     requirements fit there.
> 
>     Regards,
> 
>     Christer
> 
> 
> 
>     Den 17. okt. 2017 21:26, skrev Christer Holmberg:
>     >> I was thinking of something like:
>     >>
>     >> The exchange of information MUST result in the following
>     information being available to the ICE agent:
>     >>
>     >> - Whether the remote peer supports ICE at all
>     >> - What ICE options, if any, are supported
>     >> - Whether the remote peer is Lite or Full
>     >> - Whether the remote peer thinks it's the Initiating Agent or not
>     >> - What candidates the remote peer wishes to make available
>     >> - Whether an ICE restart is desired
>     > Looks ok, but I am not sure what mean by the 4th, regarding
>     thinking it's the initiating agent or not.
>     >
>     >
> 
>     The spec says that the initiating agent will take the CONTROLLING
>     role if both parties are Full ICE implementations, or if both
>     parties are Lite implementations. This means that it has to know
>     that it's the initiating agent.
> 
>     In cases like Offer/Answer (without glare), it's simple to see which
>     one is initiating. In cases with 3rd party control (both parties get
>     called for setup), chat-line systems (both parties initiate a join)
>     or protocols where glare is possible, something has to make the
>     decision on which side has the Initiator role.
> 
>     I'd prefer to abandon the Initiator concept, and say that the
>     exchange of information should give back the information to each
>     about whether they should try to take the Controlling role, but that
>     may be a larger rewrite.
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Ice mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ice mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>