ice-wg / trickle Goto Github PK

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

@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...

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).

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

Emil asked for this at IETF 96.

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.

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

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