Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse

Eric Rescorla <> Tue, 29 January 2019 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 084A112875B for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:56:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.041
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.041 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I-oNnWTE4iJB for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:56:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A7725126DBF for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:56:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id k15-v6so15948319ljc.8 for <>; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:56:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=gPaxs4KVw8UPGu9BJRh5sjpOTQIPwXnIFEtO0+vD1tY=; b=e9X0CQvTIAKJacvD2NR6oH+FcsA8dJEqBFjIaP4dxW44OmqSTgY956Za6ibXvoOiMv Wr0guzSVBOlNRW9t8+gtHlKSU3Gdsz8tCzcaOpB39kn057mKIQHJRnUfDrdX08TNijrv Hxch/4N5+iBs/3baK72HNX3eCsUZxjfV6pFXuroYFhAcBfflHV3E0XffR4n+rAV4nufg x8WBJsuMBGvZrIAhZltiphYlLZGha/r7GKaqGPXiSNnq9QqImnvGSqcWh0CAy0KK0sFO X9zLVNGvJ2hE/N7QOkSioBBunWs2kYGv1H2jLNvrvdb1zuvyKI3oSQQvYtzjg/0MxZPa XshQ==
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=gPaxs4KVw8UPGu9BJRh5sjpOTQIPwXnIFEtO0+vD1tY=; b=Aujitl905zffzAOEOFLkz4FpLIecpeDYg/5mH0Ph2tkn19rc2K9S7E+kS7OlSmWWUA f3l1/a7QHhgKyEq6zuJy+wU5tYF8Tyn1RTdnvic5MFlPPlDkuxkVR4ISM/OLj9U/2jw4 yzs6o8jIj4XsmbNfm/jqynDlzjTcTtyMNpETK6XOdZaXG9ITyl7AyPIyTjbG+DmOmJzi sh/tDgEHfwmRUfwWrYS4EXv1xHV4ElwRdy4X4zcw+s8YkfX8nEoPQT2gM1uLXeVQNZNQ d6CpgBJ96jrn3OB6GA+zNUBSqStkOxTaCtxl8dY3H2zm80UoVV3rJWu4V/+HhxUZVkLX Dllg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJcUukeiJrZBbESZYjws2AAtid2Fv34m0YS0WU98uNcxxyJi4W3fgu3Q zuIofvkPOINhDv0tLQxCuCmIBqu+TCzm8uZ6Aod2nw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ALg8bN4nwqzqsiZKqFaWrdES5p3pBq+5cKeDU9pLQS/dQV4H5ruPubal5H+mHUEYhFKt/pkZ94vs/AYuirwAAnrlFPY=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:91d1:: with SMTP id u17-v6mr19213841ljg.160.1548723390782; Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:56:30 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Eric Rescorla <>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:55:53 -0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Ted Hardie <>
Cc: Justin Uberti <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009033f105808e4328"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposal to break the ICE impasse
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: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 00:56:36 -0000

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 4:47 PM Ted Hardie <> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:36 AM Eric Rescorla <> wrote:
>> If we assume that this is a real problem as opposed to a specification
>> problem, then I agree this is reasonable. However, so far nobody has shown
>> me that this is a real problem, and until that this happens, I'm not in
>> favor.
> As a chair, I wish to confirm my understanding:  you have no technical
> objection to this solution, but you do not wish to include this because you
> have seen no evidence of the problem.  Is that correct?

No. I object to it because it's unnecessary complexity and moves against
the consensus direction that we had that this field was meaningless.

If it's necessary, then I'm willing to live with it.


> Yours is, at the moment, the only objection I have seen.  Before going to
> a call for a consensus, I want to make sure that the nature of any
> objection is as clear as possible.
> thanks,
> Ted
>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 2:51 PM Justin Uberti <> wrote:
>>> Posted as a stab at a
>>> consensus. This basically says that the offerer fills in either UDP/TLS/foo
>>> or TCP/DTLS/foo based on the current default or selected candidate, in
>>> accordance with sip-sdp. As Adam mentioned before, this shouldn't have any
>>> impact on JSEP functionality.
>>> If this looks good, I'll polish it up.
>>> On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 3:22 AM Christer Holmberg <
>>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> > I'm not yet persuaded this is needed. The alleged need here is that
>>>> there are some ICE-implementing endpoints which will choke if
>>>> > they see a profile that doesn't match any actual candidate. I
>>>> recognize that this is required by 5245, but that doesn't mean anyone
>>>> > ever did it. Can you please point me to a client which would
>>>> interoperate with a WebRTC endpoint with this change that would not
>>>> > if you just always sent the same profile as JSEP currently requires.
>>>> I don't think it is ok to *specify* that discarding a MUST is ok as
>>>> long as nobody can show an implementation that would break by doing so.
>>>> Having said that, in order to prevent an RTCWEB shutdown I am generally
>>>> ok with Adam's approach. I would like my pull request comments to be
>>>> addressed, though, that is related to separation between the JSEP API and
>>>> an application using it: an application should be allowed to act according
>>>> to 5245/draft-ice-sdp and update the c/m line if it wishes to, but due to
>>>> the way the JSEP API works such applications might sometimes always include
>>>> the same value in the c/m- line.
>>>> I also think it shall be explicitly written that JSEP does not update
>>>> 5245/draft-ice-sdp, but rather deviates when it comes to the c/m- line.
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Christer
>>>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 11:12 AM Adam Roach <> wrote:
>>>> Based on conversations in MMUSIC, as well as several offline
>>>> conversations with interested parties, I've put together a proposed
>>>> change to JSEP that, if accepted, will allow publication of the Cluster
>>>> 238 documents to move forward.
>>>> Note that this new text has no impact on existing implementations (at
>>>> least, as far as I am able to discern), which do not currently have the
>>>> capability of producing media sections consisting of exclusively TCP
>>>> candidates. From that perspective, the change makes existing
>>>> implementations no less compliant with JSEP than they were before.
>>>> What this change does provide is both on-paper and in-the-future
>>>> compatibility between WebRTC implementations once they finalize TCP
>>>> candidate handling (and candidate handling in general for mid-session
>>>> offers).
>>>> The key insight here is that JSEP's use of ICE completely discards any
>>>> meaning associated with the transport parameter, while SIP's use of ICE
>>>> does not. The trivial change that I propose, which bears only on future
>>>> WebRTC implementations -- that is, which has no as-built specification
>>>> to point to -- allows JSEP to continue to ignore the value of the
>>>> transport parameter, while specifying that it says the right thing for
>>>> SIP implementations to function properly.
>>>> /a
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rtcweb mailing list
>>> _______________________________________________
>> rtcweb mailing list