[Jingle] open issue: removing candidates

Olivier Crête olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
Wed May 6 16:23:54 CDT 2009

Hash: SHA1

Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Justin Karneges raised one issue with me that I think it would be best
> to discuss on this list: do we need a way to remove a candidate?
> Perhaps during ICE-UDP negotiation you include a transport candidate
> that later on becomes expensive or that even goes away (NIC fails or
> whatever). Do we need a way to take that candidate out of consideration
> for transport connectivity?

I don't really see the point of removing candidates:

1. The ICE negotiation is only done at the start, the current draft has
no provision to allow restarting it if the connection fail.

2. If we want to restart ICE, we do ICE restart and then we just send a
whole new set of candidates? Although I see nothing about ICE restarts
in the XEP..

2. Even if it was possible to restart the negotiation without doing a
ICE restart, having extra candidates does not cost anything, if its no
possible to establish a connection though there, another candidate will
be used to establish the connection. And just sending a udp packet can
not really become expensive.

I would also drop the "transport-replace" and just add more candidates.

- --
Olivier Crête
olivier.crete at collabora.co.uk
Collabora Ltd
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


More information about the Jingle mailing list