Re: [Stox] Stox-media: Should XEP-176 translations have Require: ice?

Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com> Wed, 26 March 2014 11:09 UTC

Return-Path: <saul@ag-projects.com>
X-Original-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: stox@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A68A1A0185 for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:09:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.989 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A3_CkGeBlSEh for <stox@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sipthor.net (node16.dns-hosting.info [81.23.228.161]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 970D51A0181 for <stox@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 04:09:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imac.saghul.lan (ip3e830637.speed.planet.nl [62.131.6.55]) by mail.sipthor.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E3FA816DC718; Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:09:24 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com>
In-Reply-To: <E95AAC63-26BF-48A9-A2D5-BEBB88B92567@vidyo.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 12:09:24 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <88B0B8A1-4FBC-4596-A5FF-7378DA5458D9@ag-projects.com>
References: <26E25338-948C-43FA-A0AE-880BD1CB49B0@vidyo.com> <532A645A.3080605@stpeter.im> <F3A5A36B-978D-4B50-8E24-A4D4AA77D370@ag-projects.com> <E95AAC63-26BF-48A9-A2D5-BEBB88B92567@vidyo.com>
To: Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/stox/Ju_eblIoJ1ee0bxko8PCjuG30d8
Cc: "stox@ietf.org" <stox@ietf.org>, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@stpeter.im>
Subject: Re: [Stox] Stox-media: Should XEP-176 translations have Require: ice?
X-BeenThere: stox@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: SIP-TO-XMPP Working Group discussion list <stox.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/stox/>
List-Post: <mailto:stox@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/stox>, <mailto:stox-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:09:30 -0000

On Mar 25, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Jonathan Lennox wrote:

> 
> On Mar 25, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Saúl Ibarra Corretgé <saul@ag-projects.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> It occurred to me that SIP has a way of saying "do ICE, or fail the
>>>> call": putting a "Require: ice" SIP option tag (from RFC 5768) in the
>>>> SIP INVITE.
>>>> 
>>>> Should we recommend this?  It clearly has the right semantics, and
>>>> will prevent interop failure when a non-ICE SIP endpoint answers a
>>>> XEP-176 Jingle call.
>>> 
>>> Theoretically that makes sense.
>> 
>> Agreed. Maybe a gateway could do ICE on behalf of the non-ICE capable endpoint, so can we say this is implementation specific and thus add a MAY to it?
> 
> Right, of course.  I was talking about how you’d want to handle a signaling-only gateway.

Ah, by bad, sorry. As Peter pointed out there is a fallback mechanism, so if the Jingle endpoint advertised support for raw UDP it should be possible to fallback. In case it didn't there is nothing that can be done.

> 
>>>> My concern, though, is whether there are a) endpoints that implement
>>>> RFC 5245 but not RFC 5768, or b) non-media-terminating B2BUAs that
>>>> will pass ICE parameters through, but will reject calls with Require
>>>> headers they don't know.  In either of these cases, adding this
>>>> Require header would cause a call that would otherwise have worked to
>>>> fail.
>>> 
>>> That would be bad.
>>> 
>>>> Any thoughts, especially from folks who know the state of deployed
>>>> SIP better than I do?
>>> 
>>> Inquiring minds want to know. :-)
>>> 
>> 
>> FWIW, in Blink we do use the option tag in the Contact header but we don't add the Requires header, since we can work fine without ICE. Can't say what SBCs do though…
> 
> When you say “can work fine without ICE”, do you mean you support full RFC 5245 fallback to the use of the m/c line for media?  That does indeed sound like the case when you should have the Contact tag but not the requires header.
> 

Yep.

--
Saúl Ibarra Corretgé
AG Projects