ice-wg / trickle

Trickle ICE: Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Protocol

This is the working area for the Working Group internet-draft, "Trickle ICE: Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Protocol".

• Editor's copy
• [Working Group Draft] (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ice-trickle)

Building the Draft

Formatted text and HTML versions of the draft can be built using make.

$ make

This requires that you have the necessary software installed. See the instructions.

Contributing

Before submitting feedback, please familiarize yourself with our current issues list and review the working group documents and mailing list discussion. If you're new to this, you may also want to read the Tao of the IETF.

Be aware that all contributions to the specification fall under the "NOTE WELL" terms outlined below.

1. The best way to provide feedback (editorial or design) and ask questions is sending an e-mail to our mailing list (info). This will ensure that the entire Working Group sees your input in a timely fashion.

2. If you have editorial suggestions (i.e., those that do not change the meaning of the specification), you can either:

a) Fork this repository and submit a pull request; this is the lowest friction way to get editorial changes in.

b) Submit a new issue to Github, and mention that you believe it is editorial in the issue body. It is not necessary to notify the mailing list for editorial issues.

c) Make comments on individual commits in Github. Note that this feedback is processed only with best effort by the editors, so it should only be used for quick editorial suggestions or questions.

3. For non-editorial (i.e., design) issues, you can also create an issue on Github. However, you must notify the mailing list when creating such issues, providing a link to the issue in the message body.

Note that github issues are not for substantial discussions; the only appropriate place to discuss design issues is on the mailing list itself.

NOTE WELL

Any submission to the IETF intended by the Contributor for publication as all or part of an IETF Internet-Draft or RFC and any statement made within the context of an IETF activity is considered an "IETF Contribution". Such statements include oral statements in IETF sessions, as well as written and electronic communications made at any time or place, which are addressed to:

• The IETF plenary session
• The IESG, or any member thereof on behalf of the IESG
• Any IETF mailing list, including the IETF list itself, any working group or design team list, or any other list functioning under IETF auspices
• Any IETF working group or portion thereof
• Any Birds of a Feather (BOF) session
• The IAB or any member thereof on behalf of the IAB
• The RFC Editor or the Internet-Drafts function
• All IETF Contributions are subject to the rules of RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 (updated by RFC 4879).

Statements made outside of an IETF session, mailing list or other function, that are clearly not intended to be input to an IETF activity, group or function, are not IETF Contributions in the context of this notice.

Please consult RFC 5378 and RFC 3979 for details.

A participant in any IETF activity is deemed to accept all IETF rules of process, as documented in Best Current Practices RFCs and IESG Statements.

A participant in any IETF activity acknowledges that written, audio and video records of meetings may be made and may be available to the public.

trickle's Issues

add IPv6 examples

See draft-robachevsky-mandating-use-of-ipv6-examples for rationale and suggestions.

Trickle ICE plus ICE restarts

@emcho and @stpeter had an editors' discussion (see emcho/trickle-ice#3) about how to specify the handling of ICE restarts in the context of Trickle ICE. One possible approach would be to send a new ufrag and pwd without triggering a full offer/answer exchange, because Trickle (and ICE itself) can be used with application protocols that are not tied to O/A. There is an SDP dependency on the a= line, but we've disengaged Trickle ICE from SDP, too. Also, if the sender doesn't include a media description then a new offer might not be necessary anyway. I'm hoping that @emcho can propose text...

Make sure there is a clear recommendation to try to trickle in declarative order

Emil asked for this at IETF 96.

Change rfc5245bis citation to RFC 5245

Editorial: According to the WG milestones, draft-ietf-ice-trickle will be progressed before draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis. Therefore, we should change the citation from rfc5245bis back to RFC 5245 (this was modified when publishing version 01).

Update candidate deduplication based on decision at IETF 95: choose highest priority

At IETF 95, we decided to update duplicate (prflx/srflx) candidates to the highest priority (neither last wins nor highest wins). We need to update the draft text.

Minutes:

https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/95/minutes/minutes-95-ice

Unfreezing procedures (update to decision at IETF 95)

Open issue from Yokohama: what to do about unfreezing when one component doesn't have the same foundation as another? We need a proposal.

"trickle" ICE option should be provided for all media streams in the ICE description

Something noticed by @fippo: It's legal for "a=ice-option:trickle" to exist at the media-level (as opposed to session-level), and there's nothing that explicitly prevents an endpoint from using "trickle" with some media streams but not others.

The "trickle" ICE option isn't intended to have that level of granularity, so I suggest addressing this in the trickle spec by adding a sentence like:

An ICE agent compliant to this specification MUST inform the peer about the compliance using the 'trickle' ICE option, either at the session level or for every media stream at the media stream level.

This sentence is mostly copied from ICEbis talking about the "ice2" option.

Remove outdated reference to mmusic-ice-address-selection

The Trickle ICE draft has still an informative reference to a draft that has expired long ago and will not go forward since it became part of ICE-bis. Seems safe to remove.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/lf3TbDMIqaW7UqUklaP9FfVQSmI