IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Wish] Proposal: Triggering ICE Restart

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Mon, 02 August 2021 20:14 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 E144D3A1AB5 for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 13:14:16 -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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 SdcuthS_wiOk for <wish@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 13:14:11 -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 3D2203A1AB2 for <wish@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Aug 2021 13:14:11 -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 172KE6a4012287 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:14:07 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=nostrum.com; s=default; t=1627935247; bh=qldhSYLsYRA/5Y6JxUoPgX9tQiO5fRLHZCU5LlfsSqM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=ITicmLZXs+gRFBXrpqpajAPnMXI9MGGAJnqLm18sUJG1bODmvOi5fjHOBxvpVTMko s8/c1NJsTKuGbYDMV29hYdZ3l12twp17OaSji52ick1NPVVSUPTawrDY1V/eTvFe4u ogk6vs4jxwicMKUWlHdg6D4K/fYhPqNt98Ltkkj4=
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: Sergio Garcia Murillo <sergio.garcia.murillo@gmail.com>
Cc: WISH List <wish@ietf.org>
References: <bd38b2af-a7a7-e992-ab46-a9fe4f06b305@nostrum.com> <CA+ag07Zy-CGzfWMHQ9kL6j3hS1JhB3P02FJRvMd8Fb7D9HCXKA@mail.gmail.com> <1a723b61-ff83-a9e4-c7e9-45950914ba44@nostrum.com> <CA+ag07Z=v6uvQsP9dkrC2zrBk53mxOWWrqow+LHXuPZKM0tURw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <437e03e0-3594-2090-326e-e0859bf604d2@nostrum.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2021 15:14:01 -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
In-Reply-To: <CA+ag07Z=v6uvQsP9dkrC2zrBk53mxOWWrqow+LHXuPZKM0tURw@mail.gmail.com>
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/mVGGvwMCC90xc9m2xKnZPg38rJo>
Subject: Re: [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: Mon, 02 Aug 2021 20:14:17 -0000

On 7/31/21 02:35, Sergio Garcia Murillo wrote:
> On the other side mapping the sdp frag info to an actual sdp o/a is a 
> trivial string replacement for the sdp answer, you can get the local 
> username and frag from the ice transport object and add the server new 
> candidates via the addCandidate method.


This kind of syntactic manipulation seems really inelegant to me, but I 
can live with it if it gets us to consensus faster.

So, in this scheme, we address the issue that Jonathan raised by 
returning ICE candidates in a 200 response to the PATCH request, right? 
Jonathan: can you see any issues with that approach?

/a

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email