[Jingle] ICE-CONTROLLING / CONTROLLED

Olivier Crête olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
Tue Dec 1 07:28:47 CST 2009


On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 11:12 -0800, Justin Karneges wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2009 03:15:22 Dave Cridland wrote:
> > On Sun Nov 29 22:27:26 2009, Justin Karneges wrote:
> > > According to the ICE draft, these attributes are used in
> > > connectivity checks
> > > to resolve role conflicts.  However, in XMPP there shouldn't ever
> > > be a role
> > > conflict, right?  It is clear who is the initiator and the
> > > responder.
> > >
> > > XEP-0176 mandates the usage of these attributes.  Maybe this is
> > > because the
> > > ICE draft does also?  Section 7.1.1.2 says:  "The agent MUST
> > > include the
> > > ICE-CONTROLLED attribute in the request if it is in the controlled
> > > role, and
> > > MUST include the ICE-CONTROLLING attribute in the request if it is
> > > in the
> > > controlling role."
> > >
> > > Maybe we should drop this requirement from XEP-0176?  Or maybe we
> > > could say
> > > something like "the attributes MUST be included for consistency
> > > with the ICE
> > > draft but their values don't matter and are not ever used" ?
> >
> > I'm assuming that ICE libraries would typically mandate these
> > attributes anyway. I don't see the utility in specifying that they
> > "don't matter", aside from creating confusion.
> 
> If XEP-0176 was literally ICE reframed in XML stanzas, then I might agree.  
> But the XEP is more of an ICE variant, and it has different rules.  For 
> example, the XEP specifies trickling candidates.  This means you wouldn't (or 
> wouldn't want to) pair a generic ICE library with Jingle.  Instead, you'd use 
> a XEP-0176-specific ICE library, or some multi-purpose ICE library that 
> supports the XEP-0176-isms.
> 
> Because of this, I think it is entirely legit that someone (read: me) would 
> implement only the parts of ICE that matter for Jingle.  Two Jingle clients 
> will do nothing with the ICE-CONTROLLING/CONTROLLED attributes, even though 
> they are mandated by the spec, and that confused me as an implementor.  Here 
> I am setting the attributes but never reading them, and it causes me to 
> second guess my code and write to a mailing list.

Really, I think you are being lazy. We should do our best to not
differentiate from the ICE spec unless it really brings a lot of value.

-- 
Olivier Crête
olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/jingle/attachments/20091201/fe623e48/attachment.pgp>


More information about the Jingle mailing list