Hi,
>>> Significant Issues:
>>>
>>> A. Section 5.2:
>>>
>>> Lite implementations only utilize host candidates. A lite
>>> implementation MUST, for each component of each data stream,
>>>allocate
>>> zero or one IPv4 candidates. It MAY allocate zero or more IPv6
>>> candidates, but no more than one per each IPv6 address utilized by
>>> the host. Since there can be no more than one IPv4 candidate per
>>> component of each data stream, if an ICE agent has multiple IPv4
>>> addresses, it MUST choose one for allocating the candidate. If a
>>> host is dual-stack, it is RECOMMENDED that it allocate one IPv4
>>> candidate and one global IPv6 address. With the lite
>>>implementation,
>>> ICE cannot be used to dynamically choose amongst candidates.
>>> Therefore, including more than one candidate from a particular
>>>scope
>>> is NOT RECOMMENDED, since only a connectivity check can truly
>>> determine whether to use one address or the other.
>>>
>>> I find it quite strange that the above text says there can only be
>>>single
>>> IPv4
>>> based candidate, while for IPv6 a LITE implementation may have one
>>> candidate
>>> per IPv6 address. Isn't the LITE implication of having multiple
>>> candidates for
>>> the same address family similar? Yes, IPv6 kind of forces the need for
>>> dealing
>>> with multiple IPv6 addresses on any host. However, I can see that
>>>certain
>>> servers will actually be multi-homed in IPv4 and thus can in a sensible
>>> way
>>> actually have multiple IPv4 candidates, and let the clients select
>>>which
>>> interface has the best reachability.
>>>
>>> Can you please be explicit on what in ICE prevents things to work for
>>> IPv4 but
>>> the same case works for IPv6?
>> This is text from RFC 5245. I agree it is confusing, and unfortunately I
>> don¹t have a good answer.
>>
>> I guess my approach would be to suggest that we simply remove the
>> restriction. In addition, there is generic text about dual-stack etc
>> elsewhere,
>> and I don¹t see anything ICE lite specific.
>>
>> OLD:
>>
>> "Lite implementations only utilize host candidates. A lite
>> implementation MUST, for each component of each data stream,
>>allocate
>> zero or one IPv4 candidates. It MAY allocate zero or more IPv6
>> candidates, but no more than one per each IPv6 address utilized by
>> the host. Since there can be no more than one IPv4 candidate per
>> component of each data stream, if an ICE agent has multiple IPv4
>> addresses, it MUST choose one for allocating the candidate. If a
>> host is dual-stack, it is RECOMMENDED that it allocate one IPv4
>> candidate and one global IPv6 address. With the lite
>>implementation,
>> ICE cannot be used to dynamically choose amongst candidates.
>> Therefore, including more than one candidate from a particular scope
>> is NOT RECOMMENDED, since only a connectivity check can truly
>> determine whether to use one address or the other."
>>
>>
>> NEW:
>>
>> "Lite implementations only utilize host candidates.
>> With the lite implementation, ICE cannot be used to dynamically choose
>> amongst candidates. Therefore, including more than one candidate from a
>> particular IP address family is NOT RECOMMENDED, since only a
>>connectivity
>> check can Truly determine whether to use one address or the other."
>
>I have read Ben's comment on this issue. I think something needs to be
>done to avoid the confusion. There are I think two alternatives,
>either retain the restriction with an added note on why this restriction
>exists. The second I think is to go with an amended version of the text
>proposal, possibly with even clearer wording that if you are running
>multiple addresses in the same family, you should really should be using
>a full implementation.
>
>I noted that the "NEW" text above needs an amendment, and that is
>because I think a very important part of what was cut needs to be
>retained.
>
>It MAY allocate zero or more IPv6
>candidates, but no more than one per each IPv6 address utilized by
> the host.
>
>If one generalize this what is missing is the limitation that only a
>single candidate per IP address utilized by the host can be added by a
>lite implementation. Using multiple would be redundant, but lets use a
>direct statement to this affect, rather than a subordinate clause to a
>MAY statement.
Could you suggest new text?
---
>>>B. Section 6.1.1:
>>>
>>> An agent MUST be prepared that the peer might re-determine the
>>>roles
>>> as part of any ICE restart, even if the criteria for doing so are
>>>not
>>> fulfilled. This can happen if the peer is compliant with an older
>>> version of this specification.
>>>
>>> What does it mean to be prepared for a peer that re-determine the
>>>roles?
>>> What
>>> is it one MUST do? If the peer changes its role upon an ICE restart,
>>> isn't that
>>> going to result in a role mismatch? Thus causing yet another ICE
>>>restart,
>>> where
>>> also this peer will re-evalute? Isn't that good enough? Or is it
>>> something else
>>> it can do?
>> The roles are re-negotiated during the ICE restart: it may, or may not,
>> result in a role mismatch.
>>
>> "Prepared" means that the peer might change its role even though it does
>> not fulfil the 5245bis criteria for being allowed to do so.
>
>Yes, but prepared is not actionable. I guess what you mean is that an
>implementation MUST accept and perform re-determination of the role
>initiated by the peer agent, even if the criteria are not fulfilled.
What about:
OLD:
An agent MUST be prepared that the peer might re-determine the roles
as part of any ICE restart, even if the criteria for doing so are not
fulfilled. This can happen if the peer is compliant with an older
version of this specification.
NEW:
An agent MUST accept if the peer initiates a re-determination of the roles
even if the criteria for doing so are not fulfilled. This can happen if the
peer is compliant with RFC 5245.
---
...
>>> D. Section 6.1.4.2:
>>>
>>> I don't know if I misunderstand the algorithm here in the bullet list.
>>>To
>>> me it
>>> appears that it will terminate prior to have initiated all possible
>>> tests, as
>>> it appears that it will not unfreeze some of the candidate pairs. If
>>>one
>>> have
>>> tests running for a foundation, but all other candidate checks have
>>>been
>>> started, then the steps are aborted. Is the bullet list rechecked every
>>> Ta?
>> No. Whenever Ta fires, one check list in Running state is checked. When
>> all check lists have been checked, it will start over from the top of
>>the
>> list.
>>
>> Or, did I misunderstand your issue?
>
>No, It was unclear that this is re-run every time Ta fires. I think the
>reason for this is this sentence in step 4.
>
>If this happens for every single check list in the
> Running state, meaning there are no remaining candidate pairs to
> perform connectivity checks for, abort these steps.
>
>It was unclear to me that this doesn't mean aborting the whole
>procedure. Because if the requirement is fulfilled then there is nothing
>to do until the next Ta, which will possible unfreeze another candidate
>pair in step 2. I would recommend that you reformulate this sentence to
>make it clear that the processing for this Ta is stopped, and processing
>will be resumed the next time Ta fires.
Isn¹t that indicated in the sentence before the list:
"Whenever Ta fires, the ICE agent will perform a check for a candidate
pair within the picked check list by performing the following steps:²
---
>>> E. Section 7.2.5.2.2. ICMP Error
>>>
>>> An ICE agent MAY support processing of ICMP errors for connectivity
>>> checks. If the agent supports processing of ICMP errors, and if a
>>> Binging request generates an ICMP error, the agent SHOULD set the
>>> state of the candidate pair to Failed.
>>>
>>> I am a bit worried by this blanket statement on ICMP errors. I think it
>>> should
>>> be clarified which ICMP message types that are relevant to consider as
>>> errors?
>>> I assume Type 3 (Destination Unreachable) but maybe not all responde
>>> codes as
>>> Codes 4, 11,12 may be addressable in other ways, and likely Type 11
>>>(Time
>>> exceeded) with response code 0, response code 1 is not a clear
>>>indication
>>> of a
>>> non working path.
>> This is from RFC 5245.
>>
>> I don¹t think the ICE WG should go through all different codes and
>> combinations, and determine what should be considered an error, and what
>> not.
>>
>> If you can provide something (table, guidance etc), we are happy to
>> include it. Otherwise I¹d like to keep it as it is, and let
>> implementations deal with it, as at least I am not aware that this would
>> Have caused issues in ICE deployments.
>
>I think we there is a point to clarify that this applies to ICMP
>messages indicating a non-usable path. So maybe it could be rewritten to
>something like this:
>
> An ICE agent MAY support processing of ICMP messaging indicating a
>non-functioning path for connectivity
> checks. ICMP messages of type 3 (Destination Unreachable) are
>indicators of a currently non-functioning path. However, the issue can be
>temporary as it can depend on routing transients, this for example
>applies to codes 0, 1 and 5. Other messages that appear to indicate
>non-functioning path such as Type=11 (Time Exceeded) with code=0 (Time to
>Live exceeded in Transit) are not clear indicator as the IP packets
>potentially can reach the destination with a larger TTL value set at
>transmission. Therefore, implementation needs to analyse the different
>ICMP messages types and codes for which it considers the path as
>non-functioning. If the agent supports processing of ICMP errors, and if a
> Binging request generates an ICMP error, the agent SHOULD set the
> state of the candidate pair to Failed.
>
>
>What also is not addressed in this is the risk of denial of service
>attacks using spoofed ICMP messages to shutdown certain connectivity
>checks. The security considerations lack any discussion of this issue.
>If ICMP processing are retained, I think a recommendation about
>validation is needed to avoid at least off path attackers from doing
>these attacks easily. Unfortunately ICMP response will only include the
>IP/UDP header, thus no data from the STUN messages which would allow
>verification that the ICMP messages matches an actually sent check.
>
>It may be simplest to recommend against reacting to ICMP errors from
>both the perspective that it is a risk for denial of service attack, as
>well as that it represents a risk terminating connectivity checks for a
>transient issue. From my perspective I expect this to reduce the number
>of sent connectivity checks very little
So, are you saying that an agent should simply ignore ICMP messages?
---
...
>>> H. Section 14.3:
>>>
>>> Num-Waiting: the number of checks in the check list in the
>>> Waiting state.
>>>
>>> Num-In-Progress: the number of checks in the In-Progress state.
>>>
>>> Is "the number of checks" only per single checklist or across all the
>>> check
>>> lists?
>> Per single check list.
>
>Section 14.1 says: "Those formulas scale
> with N, the number of checks to be performed."
>
>But, from my perspective, that number N is not on a single checklist,
>but for the whole ICE session, i.e. all the checklists. Thus, I think
>there needs a clarification on why this is per checklist, making it
>clear why these two things match up.
Actually, I think I was wrong. It is per check list SET, i.e., all check
lists.
---
>>> I. Section 17.2.3:
>>>
>>> When VAD is being
>>> used, keepalives will be sent during silence periods.
>>>
>>> I would claim that this is only true for when VAD without any comfort
>>> noise is
>>> used. A lot of codecs with VAD operations still generates comfort noise
>>> on a
>>> frequency of a couple packets a second, way more often then the minimal
>>> for ICE
>>> keep-alives.
>> What about:
>>
>> "In deployments that are not utilizing Voice Activity Detection (VAD),
>> without any comfort noise,
>> the keepalives are never..."
>
>That is also not true. As keep-alives is not expected to be needed for:
>1. Continous media withouth any VAD etc.
>2. Media with VAD, but with comfort noise not allowing intervals to be
>to long (<=1 second).
What about:
OLD:
In deployments that are not utilizing Voice Activity Detection (VAD), the
keepalives are never
used and there is no increase in bandwidth usage. When VAD is being
used, keepalives will be sent during silence periods. This involves
a single packet every 15-20 seconds, far less than the packet every
20-30 ms that is sent when there is voice. Therefore, keepalives
don't have any real impact on capacity planning.
NEW:
In deployments with continuous media and without utilizing Voice Activity
Detection (VAD),
or deployments where VAD is utilized together with short interval (max 1
second) comfort noise,
the keepalives are never used and there is no increase in bandwidth usage.
When VAD is being
Used without comfort noise, keepalives will be sent during silence
periods. This involves
a single packet every 15-20 seconds, far less than the packet every
20-30 ms that is sent when
there is voice. Therefore, keepalives don't have any real impact on
capacity planning.
=======
Minor/Editorial Issues:
...
>>> 7. Section 7.3:
>>>
>>> If the agent is using Diffserv Codepoint markings [RFC2475] in its
>>> data packets, it SHOULD apply the same markings to Binding
>>>responses.
>>>
>>> I find this sentence a bit unclear. Is it intended to say:
>>>
>>> If the agent receiving the binding request, intended to use DSCP
>>>markings
>>> !=0
>>> for the data, it SHOULD set, the same marking to binding responses.
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> If the agent receives a binding request with DSCP markings, then it
>>>should
>>> apply to corresponding code point when forming the binding response?
>> It means that it will use the same markings in Binding responses that it
>> uses in data packets (audio, video, etc).
>
>Okay, I wonder if it is the temporal aspect of the sentence that makes
>it harder for me to parse correctly.
>>>There are unclarity of which agent is referenced and whom "it" is in the
>>> sentence.
>
>It is the STUN server.
>
>Would the following be more clear?
>
>"If the agent is using Diffserv Codepoint markings [RFC2475] in data
>packets that it sends, the agent SHOULD apply the same markings to Binding
>responses."
>
>Yes, except that I stumbles "it sends" where it is more likely "it will
>send" is the correct form.
"If the agent is using Diffserv Codepoint markings [RFC2475] in data
packets that it will send, the agent SHOULD apply the same markings to
Binding
Responses that it will send."
---
>>> 8. Section 8.3.1:
>>>
>>> The procedures in Section 8 require that an ICE agent continue to
>>> listen for STUN requests and continue to generate triggered checks
>>> for a data stream, even once processing for that stream completes.
>>>
>>> That reference to Section 8, should that in fact be to Section 8.1
>>> specifically? It looks strange with a self reference, which in some
>>> aspect a
>>> reference to section 8 means.
>
>I think this issue was missed.
Sorry for that.
The text can be removed, because it refers to text further down in the
same subsection (first sentence of second paragraph).
---
>>> 9. Section 15:
>>>
>>> 4.57566E+18 (note that
>>> an implementation would represent this as a 64-bit integer so as not
>>> to lose precision).
>>>
>>> Why the floating point representation? Priorities are integer numbers
>>>and
>>> thus
>>> should be presented as such in this example.
>> This is from RFC 5245, and unfortunately I don¹t know.
>
>Can you not just calculate the 64-bit integer and write it out?
So, you want me to write 4575660000000000000?
Regards,
Christer
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>