Change:
in cases where gathering is not performed prior to initiating the call. <del> JSEP supports optional candidate trickling by providing APIs that provide control and feedback on the ICE candidate gathering process. Applications that support candidate trickling can send the initial offer immediately and send individual candidates when they get the notified of a new candidate; applications that do not support this feature can simply wait for the indication that gathering is complete, and then create and send their offer, with all the candidates, at this time. </del> <ins> JSEP supports optional candidate trickling by providing APIs, as described above, that provide control and feedback on the ICE candidate gathering process.  Applications that support candidate trickling can send the initial offer immediately and send individual candidates when they get the notified of a new candidate; applications that do not support this feature can simply wait for the indication that gathering is complete, and then create and send their offer, with all the candidates, at this time. </ins> Upon receipt of trickled candidates, the receiving application will supply them to its ICE Agent.  This triggers the ICE Agent to start using the new remote candidates for connectivity checks. <del> 3.4.1.1. </del> <ins> 3.4.2.1. </ins> As with session descriptions, the syntax of the IceCandidate object provides some abstraction, but can be easily converted to and from

Discussion:
Tony: Explain, give example for ICE candidate pool () Magnus: ICE policy should be overridable by local policy () Explain ICE gathering phase () Replace updateIce with setConfiguration Define behavior of setConfiguration, explain how changing ICE policy works () Default candidate pool size to zero ()
OK, I rewrote a bunch of stuff here to make it clear that changes to the candidate policy require ICE restart, and ICE restart happens automatically in createOffer if the ICE configuration has changed.
PTAL
Note to self: fix the Travis failure on a bad "URL" xref
PTAL
This all LGTM.
Does it happen on PC construction, or on receiving a remote offer? Justin and Cullen thought the former, with unlimited binding keepalive time; Eric thought the latter.
Cullen and I talked about this. I think I mostly hadn't thought through the implications of unlimited keepalive. Based on that, I think we adopt the J/C interpretation but strongly advise a 0-sized default pool.
worksforme
On Jul 4, 2014, at 4:31 PM, ekr EMAIL wrote: I’m fine with default size of zero as long as when the JS explicitly sets it to something else they get that
Fixed by
Section 4.1.9: Should this section discuss that it might be browser that has overriding controls regarding if other candidates then relay ones may be provided, i.e. privacy mode? JU: Probably. The use of host candidates is something that might be forbidden by local policy. I think the right thing to do would be to introduce the concept of iceTransports in section 3.4 (ICE), and then refer to it here in updateIce (now called setConfiguration), as well as the ctor section, where the initial policy can be set. Section 5.2.1: Structure in relation between RTP media and DATA channel. Maybe you should try to find a structure that makes the difference between the two types of transport more clear, and what applies to the perspective. JU: Agree this could be improved. 5.2.3.3. VoiceActivityDetection If the "VoiceActivityDetection" constraint is specified, with a value of "true", the offer MUST indicate support for silence suppression by including comfort noise ("CN") codecs for each supported clock rate, as specified in [RFC3389], Section 5.1.

As currently specified this text requires the usage of a comfort noise codec, currently there is no such on required. I think the "MUST" needs to be rewritten. JU: I think this needs to be specified as a MUST in RTP usage then. Otherwise, this setting won't work in some browsers, leading to nondeterministic behavior. This should also be updated to set usedtx=1 for Opus. Section 5.3.1: Note that for simplicity, the answerer MAY use different payload types for codecs than the offerer, as it is not prohibited by Section 6.1. I react to the word simplicity here. I never consider usage of different PTs per direction anything simple. But, yes it is allowed by RFC 3264. But I kind of protest to encourage the usage. JU: Clearly this needs more explanation. The basic issue is the fact that using the same payload types gets really hairy when using RTX and when bundling. We can add an example of the problem.
Proposed resolution is update RTP Usage updated to say 3389 is MTI
Re: 5.2.3.3 - resolution today to suggest 3389 be MTI in rtp-usage.
Proposed resolution for 5.3.1 is to remove "simplicity" and provide an example
Local policy override part addressed in .
I believe this is fixed in the current version. There has been a lot of rewriting here. I'm going to declare this closed and let Magnus re-raise if he is still sad. I believe this is addressed in PR.
I filed a new issue for this last point,
The proposed scenario is where .iceTransports is set to 'relay', and so relay gathering occurs first; non-relay gathering only occurs after .iceTransports is changed to 'all'. The flow is something like: new PC({iceTransports: 'relay'}) setRD(offer) createAnswer setLD(answer) onicegatheringstatechange(gathering) onicecandidate(relay1) onicecandidate(relay2) A: setConfiguration({iceTransports: 'all'}) onicecandidate(null) onicegatheringstatechange(complete) B: setConfiguration({iceTransports: 'all'}) In case A, we could definitely release the gathered ICE candidates immediately, with no issues.

But in case B, does it make sense to emit them, since gathering has completed? Options: 1) Emit them. No state change occurs. You called this API, you deal with it. (My preference.) 2) Transition back to gathering, emit the candidates (which will happen immediately, necessarily), go back to complete. (Changes the meaning of a gathering transition.) 3) No candidates are emitted, no state change occurs. The new type of candidates is gathered on the next ICE restart. (Complicates the use case above. But allows changing type to a more restrictive type.)
You should raise this on the list. I think that the non-relay candidates are effectively in the candidate pool. Not that that helps much.
Agree regarding the pool, i.e. they are immediately available. And that it doesn't help much. Took this to the list.
The consensus seems to be that 3) above is preferred.
Fixed by
Editorial changes: I guess my one comment addressing the document as a whole would be that the examples used in the draft are helpful in explaining certain aspects and therefore even more examples would be even more helpful. J: Which particular examples were most useful - the inline hand-wavy descriptions, the API flows, or the example SDP? Section 1.1, Paragraph 3, Last Sentence I think this can be reworded to be clearer and more powerful, something such as: "JSEP removes the browser almost entirely from the core signaling flow. The Javascript application needs interfaces for only (1) passing in local and remote session descriptions and (2) interacting with the ICE state machine." Perhaps the exact wording I've suggested is not ideal, but something that more clearly shows that JSEP removes the browser from the signaling flow and that the application (and therefore, the application's developer) needs to do only two things for establishing a session. The way it is worded now is unclear at first read and does not adequately persuade me why JSEP is awesome (IMO). J: Agree your wording is more direct. We'll rework this part. Section 3.4.2, Paragraph 1 An example of a situation where the browser might know the number of media streams ahead of time might be useful for context here, if one is easily explained. J: Sure, that makes sense.

The typical case here is for an endpoint that wants to be able to quickly set up a received call. The caller has the ability to just start the call and leave it in the local-offer state instead. Section 3.5.1, Paragraph 2 How does the application decide whether to apply as provisional or final? Does JSEP care at all or is this left entirely up to the application to decide? This is expounded on somewhat in the 2 paragraphs that follow, but I still don't feel like these questions are completely answered. J: This is an application decision; in JSEP's opinion, forking should overall be avoided. Section 4.1.2, Paragraph 2 I think this sentence would be clearer if "certain parts that are" was replaced with "functionality that is". J: Agreed. Section 4.1.2, Paragraph 3 This sentence was too hard to compute in my opinion, and I'm still not quite sure what "the document" refers to. I think rewording would be beneficial. J: Agreed - refer to "the RFC" or somesuch Section 5.1.2, bullet R-2 This shouldn't be MAY because it is not referring to an optional implementation specification of JSEP but rather a possible scenario that JSEP needs to support. It should read as just a warning and possibly specify that JSEP MUST be equipped to interface with an endpoint that is using a Lite ICE implementation. J: Agree. We'll adjust accordingly (MAY->may, MUST handle ice-lite) Section 5.2.1, bullet 3 Is there a reason to ignore the following SHOULD from RFC4566? It seems like "-" and " " are both equally meaningless, so why deviate from the standard? (I'm also not sure why we need to match it with the username in the o= line). There may be good reason for both of these, but it is not clear to me from reading the draft so I wanted to bring it up. J: It's entirely arbitrary. Since they are meaningless, I figured using similar meaningless values made this more clear than individual meaningless values. We can add some text to make this clear.

Section 5.2.1, Paragraph 3 Consider adding: "URL specified in [RFC4566] Section 5.14..." The draft references specific sections for the other SDP fields and I think it is useful here as well. J: Sounds good. Section 5.2.3, Paragraph 1 I think an example of when this would be useful might be nice for context. J: I assume you are asking for when each of the individual constraints parameters would be useful. That sounds helpful. (also dictionary change) Section 5.2.3.1 AND Section 5.2.3.2, Paragraph 1 The use of "N" is confusing. Is "N" referencing an integer value or a string with value "N". I think removing the quotes around "N" would make it entirely more understandable. J: Agreed. Constraints have been replaced with dictionaries, so we can clearly refer to this as an integer var. Section 5.3.1, Paragraph 5 This sentence is long and hard to parse. I think rewording and/or breaking up would be beneficial. J: OK.
ICE candidate pool part addressed by . I think this is now ready to be closed, but worth a double check.
I think this is now done
The text relies on the phrase "most recent gathering phase" to describe which candidates are present in SDP. Justin enumerated a few cases where the browser gathers a completely new set of candidates for an m= section (or component thereof): when a new m= section is added (which happens for a new RTCPeerConnection obviously) when an m= section did have a port of 0, but is repurposed for new media (basically the same scenario as above) ICE restart This needs a clearer definition, or maybe just a single clear description of what it means to do this. This can probably tie into the whole process of describing when candidate events fire and the interaction between that and setLocalDescription.
Martin, could you give us a PR that would satisfy you