Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE - Sending of a Subsequent Offer

From: Jonathan Rosenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:59:23 -0400

sorry for the REALLY delayed response... answers inline.

Guilherme Balena Versiani wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> When sending a subsequent offer, the draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-08.txt has 
> rules to retain/remove each of the current native candidates in the new 
> offer. But if the a=remote-candidate attribute is present in the offer, 
> what is the disposition of candidate pairs whose remote candidate was 
> not indicated in a=remote-candidate attribute?

This is a great question. According to the current text, the 
a=remote-candidate is used *only* to impact selection of a candidate in 
the m/c-line. However, as you point out, if things are running normally 
(meaning, this is not an attack), it will cause the answer to include 
candidates in the answer that need to be checked, when we know its just 
a matter of time for connectivity checks to finally verify the candidate 
that was placed in the m/c-line. It would require *another* offer in the 
reverse direction to clear those out, which is wasteful.

Consequently, I'll fix this in -09 so that a=remote-candidate causes a 
candidate to be considered valid NOT just for placement into m/c-line, 
but also for decisions about what other candidates to include.

Thanks,
Jonathan R.
-- 
Jonathan D. Rosenberg, Ph.D.                   600 Lanidex Plaza
Cisco Fellow                                   Parsippany, NJ 07054-2711
Cisco Systems
[email-masked]                              FAX:   (973) 952-5050
http://www.jdrosen.net                         PHONE: (973) 952-5000
http://www.cisco.com

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic