Re: [Wish] Implementation report for draft-ietf-wish-whip-00

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

A couple of thoughts about some pints Juliusz raised:

On 9/9/2021 11:19 AM, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>       - what is the error to return when I receive an ICE candidate for
>         a PeerConnection that used to exist but has been closed?  I'm
>         currently doing 404, which means the client cannot easily
>         distinguish between this case and that of a wrong value for the
>         resource endpoint.


The response code with the semantic you describe is 410, but I don't 
think we can require that servers make a distinction. Doing so requires 
maintaining historical records of all PeerConnections ever created. We 
could specify a window of time that servers need to remember this 
information, but I think we need to understand the value of the client 
knowing the difference before we imposed this kind of requirement on 
servers.


>       - what happens if a candidate is followed by random non-JSON garbage?
>         Is that an error?  If so, MUST I return an error or MAY I return an
>         error?  I'm currently just ignoring the garbage.


Based on a lot of real-world experience with SIP, HTTP, and HTML, I've 
come around to the position that draft-iab-protocol-maintenance makes 
some good points, and that section 7 is particularly compelling. 
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-iab-protocol-maintenance-05.html#name-virtuous-intolerance

/a