New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

RTCIceGatherPolicy harmonization with WebRTC #224

Closed
stpeter opened this Issue Jul 24, 2015 · 6 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@stpeter

stpeter commented Jul 24, 2015

ORTC has:

enum RTCIceGatherPolicy {
"all",
"nohost",
"relay"
};

WebRTC has:

enum RTCIceTransportPolicy {
"none",
"relay",
"all"
};

Consistency might be desirable with respect to "none" vs. "nohost".

@aboba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aboba

aboba Sep 21, 2015

Contributor

In the current API, an RTCIceGatherer is constructed from the RTCIceGatherPolicy, but there is no method to change the RTCIceGatherPolicy after construction. As a result, an RTCIceGatherPolicy of "none" could not be changed to another value. Also, there is no way to change the iceServers once an RTCIceGatherer is constructed. So I think there is a bigger issue here.

Contributor

aboba commented Sep 21, 2015

In the current API, an RTCIceGatherer is constructed from the RTCIceGatherPolicy, but there is no method to change the RTCIceGatherPolicy after construction. As a result, an RTCIceGatherPolicy of "none" could not be changed to another value. Also, there is no way to change the iceServers once an RTCIceGatherer is constructed. So I think there is a bigger issue here.

@aboba aboba closed this Sep 21, 2015

@robin-raymond robin-raymond reopened this Sep 21, 2015

@aboba aboba removed the PR exists label Sep 21, 2015

@robin-raymond

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@robin-raymond

robin-raymond Dec 1, 2015

Contributor

This RTCIceTransportPolicy is a transport policy not a gather policy. This is not a gather policy. If we were to have RTCIceTransportPolicy it would be on the IceTransport not on the IceGatherer.

Contributor

robin-raymond commented Dec 1, 2015

This RTCIceTransportPolicy is a transport policy not a gather policy. This is not a gather policy. If we were to have RTCIceTransportPolicy it would be on the IceTransport not on the IceGatherer.

@aboba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aboba

aboba Dec 16, 2015

Contributor

In WebRTC 1.0 there an open issue (see: w3c/webrtc-pc#384 ), relating to harmonizing RTCIceTransportPolicy.none with the values defined in draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep Section 4.1.1, which does not include “none” but does include “public”, which is defined as follows:

“Candidates with private IP addresses [RFC1918] will be filtered out. This prevents exposure of internal network details, at the cost of requiring relay usage even for intranet calls, if the NAT does not allow hairpinning as described in [RFC4787], section 6.”

Contributor

aboba commented Dec 16, 2015

In WebRTC 1.0 there an open issue (see: w3c/webrtc-pc#384 ), relating to harmonizing RTCIceTransportPolicy.none with the values defined in draft-ietf-rtcweb-jsep Section 4.1.1, which does not include “none” but does include “public”, which is defined as follows:

“Candidates with private IP addresses [RFC1918] will be filtered out. This prevents exposure of internal network details, at the cost of requiring relay usage even for intranet calls, if the NAT does not allow hairpinning as described in [RFC4787], section 6.”

@aboba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aboba

aboba Dec 17, 2015

Contributor

Since "none" has now been removed from WebRTC 1.0 RTCIceTransportPolicy, I would like to close this issue and open another one related to sync'ing the new "public" setting in RTCIceTransportPolicy.

Contributor

aboba commented Dec 17, 2015

Since "none" has now been removed from WebRTC 1.0 RTCIceTransportPolicy, I would like to close this issue and open another one related to sync'ing the new "public" setting in RTCIceTransportPolicy.

@aboba aboba closed this Dec 17, 2015

@aboba aboba reopened this Mar 16, 2016

@aboba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aboba

aboba Mar 16, 2016

Contributor

The following WebRTC 1.0 PR will remove RTCIceTransportPolicy.public:
w3c/webrtc-pc#544

Note that "all" no longer includes addresses that have been filtered by the browser.

Contributor

aboba commented Mar 16, 2016

The following WebRTC 1.0 PR will remove RTCIceTransportPolicy.public:
w3c/webrtc-pc#544

Note that "all" no longer includes addresses that have been filtered by the browser.

@aboba

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@aboba

aboba Mar 21, 2016

Contributor

@robin-raymond - can you review whether this issue is fixed and can be closed?

Contributor

aboba commented Mar 21, 2016

@robin-raymond - can you review whether this issue is fixed and can be closed?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment