[Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 30 July 2021 22:04 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: wish@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D01433A1357
for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 15:04:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.079
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.079 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01,
T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001]
autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
header.d=nostrum.com
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 EZh7u5vpRIHh for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Fri, 30 Jul 2021 15:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A8013A1345
for <wish@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 15:04:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Zephyrus.local (76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net
[76.218.40.253]) (authenticated bits=0)
by nostrum.com (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTPSA id 16UM4c8Y009725
(version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO)
for <wish@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:04:39 -0500 (CDT)
(envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com;
s=default; t=1627682679;
bh=PefauDuNKz/tWXhgzZk/DZ7C0Rh+n4IWfvUwhmUJetE=;
h=To:From:Subject:Date;
b=WC4PpVZ6ubXLymVBQPcSI5FwR7ncZCmz711DW+6D8NnMYQoqSMHqOo+yDHoYd99Fm
+9TWcrczg0dyq+VVjrgg2kyaSGKLpG7EX9Vq2JpvNrlM60kIVHLOCy8cZ9yrHEf0W0
kqAT9HJKvPIOQuFMLUjLT5ehSQWX48+LJZk2MDBA=
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host
76-218-40-253.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [76.218.40.253] claimed to be
Zephyrus.local
To: "wish@ietf.org" <wish@ietf.org>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <bd38b2af-a7a7-e992-ab46-a9fe4f06b305@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 17:04:32 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/wish/7BVi2kr9wDd42yJGL-f4NNgyAhE>
Subject: [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart
X-BeenThere: wish@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: WebRTC Ingest Signaling over HTTPS <wish.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/wish>,
<mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/wish/>
List-Post: <mailto:wish@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wish>,
<mailto:wish-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 22:04:56 -0000
During today's meeting, Jonathan raised a question about whether the currently proposed PATCH mechanism is sufficient for triggering ICE restarts. The issue is that ICE restarts result in a new generation of ICE candidates, which necessitates new ufrags and passwords on both sides. Looking at RFC 5789, it's pretty clear that PATCH is intended as an optimization of PUT rather than its own independent operation (e.g. look closely at the final paragraph of section 2). So one semantically consistent approach to ice restart would be for WHIP clients to send a PUT with a new offer rather than simply PATCHing in new candidates. This approach has a lot of appeal for me because it lines up well with the model that Jonathan was describing (where we're basically mapping WISH operations pretty directly to JSEP operations): in JSEP, ICE restarts result in the generation of a whole new offer rather than simply a set of candidates. So how would we feel about using PUT with a full SDP offer on the WHIP resource URL for ICE restarts? (Alternatively, we could use POST on that URL for an offer/answer exchange, to keep it consistent with session initiation -- I see minor pros/cons each way, but nothing decisive) /a
- [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart Adam Roach
- Re: [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart Adam Roach
- Re: [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart Sergio Garcia Murillo
- Re: [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart Adam Roach
- Re: [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart Jonathan Lennox
- Re: [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart Juliusz Chroboczek
- Re: [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart Christer Holmberg