Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Fri, 24 August 2012 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 E1BD821F860E for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 3QIqKd0gDq-i for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:43:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9296221F85AA for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:43:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eekb45 with SMTP id b45so785382eek.31 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-originating-ip:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=saEx9CBc8BMjHFglZ6E2PDqbZAJCzCI0RFaInsZathU=; b=Be/egjCghm1VSDOPBEXg0iM0z/wzRU3RMKjPtBeQNnAhBu5VYfVGSvvdl6SCoWM+2b XiwIcjUAETvyoyDl0uUi1H6L+sDY6xZeuLD8BgOBtyxBeUdQ6iacn+yD9emvOis8pIR2 H3KycgEORRcC8pv0DqIUedDEF2V56vcq0rsy5VezC4mU9KwjRfT5YwNoex2dZehVQCbg pdYejE0rkb0sSU+KCrb5X1IS+nota54hCQUJHsmpx5cdfgJjILha1XpylaE8NYXZiM0H ZXulsOSG1+3+lbd7bTW4mkdOMS/zSmB6DBRax+CyB+iP+bONDjkQ+KPr/t1+BQ7gqQbS NcDA==
Received: by 10.14.206.201 with SMTP id l49mr8457468eeo.3.1345826600575; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:43:20 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.14.187.10 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [74.95.2.169]
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXiL3_U+Hci9ooDqBCsoV3KF8pwgcf9zbuN6EKZkK+aiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBMzgAs=hK38hCjS7t6yLjkTydS2TQUb8R3rBbRKGakVdQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnVBBAH=HCkn_cksBs_9A_hm=VfFwcTtvOM3C7XB2h2KTA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMFUFjU=FQo5LeJrcMfajeae0j+PWw5U2g5dUQNcJLWaA@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXiL3_U+Hci9ooDqBCsoV3KF8pwgcf9zbuN6EKZkK+aiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 09:42:40 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNkkH93ybuMWoFg-ddKWnRgdn2Vgyb50W21A2GoMWxw6Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkY9yGQS5Y/SuJHILhcDToQuf2NuMetF+LVKYkZGzjqdCZOs4kYSbpUaqw5qKla6nBu07KW
Cc: rtcweb@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Filling in details on "trickle ICE"
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: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:43:23 -0000

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Martin Thomson
<martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 August 2012 08:59, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Martin Thomson
>> <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I suppose it depends on whether you think it's important for
>> independently developed Web applications and/or softphones
>> to be able to talk to each other.
>
> Maybe I needed to be clearer:
>
>>> These are not necessarily interoperability issues.  You can solve all
>>> of these problems without creating another RFC.
>
> I'd be interested in hearing the interoperability reason for, for
> example, giving up on a particular component instead of waiting for
> additional candidates.  What effect does that have on
> interoperability.

I'm not following what you are saying here. Ignoring the question of
non-trickle (i.e., strict RFC 5245) endpoints, if you are a trickle endpoint
that gives up under conditions when RFC 5245 says you should give
up, you are likely to have problems. You don't think it's worth writing
that down somewhere more permanent/definitive than an email
to the mailing list?

-Ekr