[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-petithuguenin-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

MMUSIC                                                 M. Petit-Huguenin
Internet-Draft                                        Impedance Mismatch
Obsoletes: 5245 (if approved)                              S. Nandakumar
Intended status: Standards Track                           Cisco Systems
Expires: April 12, 2019                                       A. Keranen
                                                                Ericsson
                                                         October 9, 2018


     Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/Answer procedures for
              Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)
                    draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp-22

Abstract

   This document describes Session Description Protocol (SDP) Offer/
   Answer procedures for carrying out Interactive Connectivity
   Establishment (ICE) between the agents.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 12, 2019.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2018 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

   This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
   Contributions published or made publicly available before November
   10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
   material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
   modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.
   Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s) controlling
   the copyright in such materials, this document may not be modified
   outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative works of it may
   not be created outside the IETF Standards Process, except to format
   it for publication as an RFC or to translate it into languages other
   than English.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  SDP Offer/Answer Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
     3.2.  Generic Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.1.  Encoding  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
       3.2.2.  RTP/RTCP Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.3.  Determining Role  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.4.  STUN Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.5.  Verifying ICE Support Procedures  . . . . . . . . . .   6
       3.2.6.  SDP Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Initial Offer/Answer Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.3.1.  Sending the Initial Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
       3.3.2.  Sending the Initial Answer  . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.3.  Receiving the Initial Answer  . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
       3.3.4.  Concluding ICE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Subsequent Offer/Answer Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.4.1.  Sending Subsequent Offer  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
       3.4.2.  Sending Subsequent Answer . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
       3.4.3.  Receiving Answer for a Subsequent Offer . . . . . . .  13
   4.  Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.1.  "candidate" Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     4.2.  "remote-candidates" Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.3.  "ice-lite" and "ice-mismatch" Attributes  . . . . . . . .  18
     4.4.  "ice-ufrag" and "ice-pwd" Attributes  . . . . . . . . . .  18
     4.5.  "ice-pacing" Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     4.6.  "ice-options" Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   5.  Keepalives  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20
   6.  SIP Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     6.1.  Latency Guidelines  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
       6.1.1.  Offer in INVITE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


       6.1.2.  Offer in Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.2.  SIP Option Tags and Media Feature Tags  . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.3.  Interactions with Forking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     6.4.  Interactions with Preconditions . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24
     6.5.  Interactions with Third Party Call Control  . . . . . . .  24
   7.  Relationship with ANAT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.1.  Attacks on the Offer/Answer Exchanges . . . . . . . . . .  25
     8.2.  Insider Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       8.2.1.  The Voice Hammer Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
       8.2.2.  Interactions with Application Layer Gateways and SIP   26
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     9.1.  SDP Attributes  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       9.1.1.  candidate Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
       9.1.2.  remote-candidates Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
       9.1.3.  ice-lite Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  28
       9.1.4.  ice-mismatch Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       9.1.5.  ice-pwd Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
       9.1.6.  ice-ufrag Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       9.1.7.  ice-options Attribute . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
       9.1.8.  ice-pacing Attribute  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
     9.2.  Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options
           Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   10. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  32
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  34
     11.3.  URIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   Appendix A.  Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  35
   Appendix B.  The remote-candidates Attribute  . . . . . . . . . .  37
   Appendix C.  Why Is the Conflict Resolution Mechanism Needed? . .  37
   Appendix D.  Why Send an Updated Offer? . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
   Appendix E.  Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  39

1.  Introduction

   This document describes how Interactive Connectivity Establishment
   (ICE) is used with Session Description Protocol (SDP) offer/answer
   [RFC3264].  The ICE specification [ICE-BIS] describes procedures that
   are common to all usages of ICE and this document gives the
   additional details needed to use ICE with SDP offer/answer.

2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and




Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC
   2119 [RFC2119].

   Readers should be familiar with the terminology defined in [RFC3264],
   in [ICE-BIS] and the following:

   Default Destination/Candidate:  The default destination for a
      component of a data stream is the transport address that would be
      used by an agent that is not ICE aware.  A default candidate for a
      component is one whose transport address matches the default
      destination for that component.  For the RTP component, the
      default IP address is in the "c=" line of the SDP, and the port is
      in the "m=" line.  For the RTCP component, the address and port
      are indicated using the "a=rtcp" attribute defined in [RFC3605],
      if present; otherwise, the RTCP component address is same as the
      address of the RTP component, and its port is one greater than the
      port of the RTP component.

3.  SDP Offer/Answer Procedures

3.1.  Introduction

   [ICE-BIS] defines ICE candidate exchange as the process for ICE
   agents (Initiator and Responder) to exchange their candidate
   information required for ICE processing at the agents.  For the
   purposes of this specification, the candidate exchange process
   corresponds to the [RFC3264] Offer/Answer protocol and the
   terminologies offerer and answerer correspond to the initiator and
   responder terminologies from [ICE-BIS] respectively.

   Once the initiating agent has gathered, pruned and prioritized its
   set of candidates [ICE-BIS], the candidate exchange with the peer
   agent begins.

3.2.  Generic Procedures

3.2.1.  Encoding

   Section 4 provides detailed rules for constructing various SDP
   attributes defined in this specification.

3.2.1.1.  Data Streams

   Each data stream [ICE-BIS] is represented by an SDP media description
   ("m=" section).






Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


3.2.1.2.  Candidates

   With in a "m=" section, each candidate (including the default
   candidate) associated with the data stream is represented by an SDP
   candidate attribute.

   Prior to nomination, the "c=" line associated with an "m=" section
   contains the IP address of the default candidate, while the "m=" line
   contains the port and transport of the default candidate for that
   "m=" section.

   After nomination, the "c=" line for a given "m=" section contains the
   IP address of the nominated candidate (the local candidate of the
   nominated candidate pair) and the "m=" line contains the port and
   transport corresponding to the nominated candidate for that "m="
   section.

3.2.1.3.  Username and Password

   The ICE username is represented by an SDP ice-ufrag attribute and the
   ICE password is represented by an SDP ice-pwd attribute.

3.2.1.4.  Lite Implementations

   An ICE lite implementation [ICE-BIS] MUST include an SDP ice-lite
   attribute.  A full implementation MUST NOT include that attribute.

3.2.1.5.  ICE Extensions

   An agent uses the SDP ice-options attribute to indicate support of
   ICE extensions.

   An agent compliant to this specification MUST include an SDP ice-
   options attribute with an "ice2" attribute value.  If an agent
   receives an SDP offer or answer with ICE attributes but without the
   "ice2" ice-options attribute value, the agent assumes that the peer
   is compliant to [RFC5245].

3.2.1.6.  Inactive and Disabled Data Streams

   If an "m=" section is marked as inactive [RFC4566], or has a
   bandwidth value of zero [RFC4566], the agent MUST still include ICE
   related SDP attributes.

   If the port value associated with an "m=" section is set to zero
   (implying a disabled stream) as defined in section 8.2 of [RFC3264],
   the agent SHOULD NOT include ICE related SDP candidate attributes in




Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   that "m=" section, unless an SDP extension specifying otherwise is
   used.

3.2.2.  RTP/RTCP Considerations

   If an agent utilizes both RTP and RTCP, the agent MUST include SDP
   candidate attributes for both the RTP and RTCP components in the "m="
   section.

   If an agent uses separate ports for RTP and RTCP, the agent MUST
   include an SDP rtcp attribute in the "m=" section, as described in
   [RFC3605].  In the cases where the port number for the RTCP is one
   higher than the RTP port and RTCP component address is same as the
   address of the RTP component, the SDP rtcp attribute MAY be omitted.

   If the agent does not utilize RTCP, it indicates that by including
   b=RS:0 and b=RR:0 SDP attributes, as described in [RFC3556].

3.2.3.  Determining Role

   The offerer acts as the Initiating agent.  The answerer acts as the
   Responding agent.  The ICE roles (controlling and controlled) are
   determined using the procedures in [ICE-BIS].

3.2.4.  STUN Considerations

   Once an agent has provided its local candidates to its peer in an SDP
   offer or answer, the agent MUST be prepared to receive STUN
   connectivity check Binding requests on those candidates.

3.2.5.  Verifying ICE Support Procedures

   The agents will proceed with the ICE procedures defined in [ICE-BIS]
   and this specification if, for each data stream in the SDP it
   received, the default destination for each component of that data
   stream appears in a candidate attribute.  For example, in the case of
   RTP, the IP address and port in the "c=" and "m=" lines,
   respectively, appear in a candidate attribute and the value in the
   rtcp attribute appears in a candidate attribute.

   If this condition is not met, the agents MUST process the SDP based
   on normal [RFC3264] procedures, without using any of the ICE
   mechanisms described in the remainder of this specification with the
   few exceptions noted below:

   1.  The presence of certain application layer gateways MAY modify the
       transport address information as described in Section 8.2.2.  The
       behavior of the responding agent in such a situation is



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


       implementation defined.  Informally, the responding agent MAY
       consider the mismatched transport address information as a
       plausible new candidate learnt from the peer and continue its ICE
       processing with that transport address included.  Alternatively,
       the responding agent MAY include an "a=ice-mismatch" attribute in
       its answer and MAY also omit a=candidate attributes for such data
       streams.

   2.  The transport address from the peer for the default destination
       correspond to IP address values "0.0.0.0"/"::" and port value of
       "9".  This MUST not be considered as a ICE failure by the peer
       agent and the ICE processing MUST continue as usual.

   Also to note, this specification provides no guidance on how an
   controlling/initiator agent should proceed in scenarios where the the
   SDP answer includes "a=ice-mismatch" from the peer.

3.2.6.  SDP Example

   The following is an example SDP message that includes ICE attributes
   (lines folded for readability):

   v=0
   o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP4 10.0.1.1
   s=
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.3
   t=0 0
   a=ice-options:ice2
   a=ice-pwd:asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg
   a=ice-ufrag:8hhY
   m=audio 45664 RTP/AVP 0
   b=RS:0
   b=RR:0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=candidate:1 1 UDP 2130706431 10.0.1.1 8998 typ host
   a=candidate:2 1 UDP 1694498815 192.0.2.3 45664 typ srflx raddr
    10.0.1.1 rport 8998

3.3.  Initial Offer/Answer Exchange

3.3.1.  Sending the Initial Offer

   When an offerer generates the initial offer, in each "m=" section it
   MUST include SDP candidate attributes for each available candidate
   associated with the "m=" section.  In addition, the offerer MUST
   include an SDP ice-ufrag and an SDP ice-pwd attribute in the offer.





Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   Note:  Within the scope of this document, "Initial Offer" refers to
      the first SDP offer that is sent in order to negotiate usage of
      ICE.  It might, or might not, be the initial SDP offer of the SDP
      session.

   Note:  The procedures in this document only consider "m=" sections
      associated with data streams where ICE is used.

3.3.2.  Sending the Initial Answer

   When an answerer receives an initial offer that indicates that the
   offerer supports ICE, and if the answerer accepts the offer and the
   usage of ICE, in each "m=" section within the answer, it MUST include
   SDP candidate attributes for each available candidate associated with
   the "m=" section.  In addition, the answerer MUST include an SDP ice-
   ufrag and an SDP ice-pwd attribute in the answer.

   Once the answerer has sent the answer, it can start performing
   connectivity checks towards the peer candidates that were provided in
   the offer.

   If the offer does not indicate support of ICE, the answerer MUST NOT
   accept the usage of ICE.  If the answerer still accepts the offer,
   the answerer MUST NOT include any ICE related SDP attributes in the
   answer.  Instead the answerer will generate the answer according to
   normal offer/answer procedures [RFC3264].

   If the answerer detects a possibility of the ICE mismatch, procedures
   described in (Section 3.2.5) are followed.

3.3.3.  Receiving the Initial Answer

   When an offerer receives an initial answer that indicates that the
   answerer supports ICE, it can start performing connectivity checks
   towards the peer candidates that were provided in the answer.

   If the answer does not indicate that the answerer supports ICE, or if
   the offerer detects an ICE mismatch in the answer, the offerer MUST
   terminate the usage of ICE.  The subsequent actions taken by the
   offerer are implementation dependent and are out of the scope of this
   specification.

3.3.4.  Concluding ICE

   Once the state of each check list is Completed, and if the agent is
   the controlling agent, it nominates a candidate pair [ICE-BIS] and
   checks for each data stream whether the nominated pair matches the
   default candidate pair.  If there are one or more data streams with a



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   match, and the peer did not indicate support for the 'ice2' ice-
   option, the controlling agent MUST generate a subsequent offer
   (Section 3.4.1), in which the IP address, port and transport in the
   "c=" and "m=" lines associated with each data stream match the
   corresponding local information of the nominated pair for that data
   stream.

   However, If the support for 'ice2' ice-option is in use, the
   nominated candidate is noted and sent in the subsequent offer/answer
   exchange as the default candidate and no updated offer is needed to
   fix the default candidate.

   Also as described in [ICE-BIS], once the controlling agent has
   nominated a candidate pair for a data stream, the agent MUST NOT
   nominate another pair for that data stream during the lifetime of the
   ICE session (i.e. until ICE is restarted).

3.4.  Subsequent Offer/Answer Exchanges

   Either agent MAY generate a subsequent offer at any time allowed by
   [RFC3264].  This section defines rules for construction of subsequent
   offers and answers.

   Should a subsequent offer fail, ICE processing continues as if the
   subsequent offer had never been made.

3.4.1.  Sending Subsequent Offer

3.4.1.1.  Procedures for All Implementations

3.4.1.1.1.  ICE Restarts

   An agent MAY restart ICE processing for an existing data stream
   [ICE-BIS].

   The rules governing the ICE restart imply that setting the IP address
   in the "c=" line to 0.0.0.0 (for IPv4)/ :: (for IPv6) will cause an
   ICE restart.  Consequently, ICE implementations MUST NOT utilize this
   mechanism for call hold, and instead MUST use a=inactive and
   a=sendonly as described in [RFC3264].

   To restart ICE, an agent MUST change both the ice-pwd and the ice-
   ufrag for the data stream in an offer.  However, it is permissible to
   use a session-level attribute in one offer, but to provide the same
   ice-pwd or ice-ufrag as a media-level attribute in a subsequent
   offer.  This MUST NOT be considered as ICE restart.





Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   An agent sets the rest of the ice related fields in the SDP for this
   data stream as it would in an initial offer of this data stream (see
   Section 3.2.1).  Consequently, the set of candidates MAY include
   some, none, or all of the previous candidates for that data stream
   and MAY include a totally new set of candidates.

3.4.1.1.2.  Removing a Data Stream

   If an agent removes a data stream by setting its port to zero, it
   MUST NOT include any candidate attributes for that data stream and
   SHOULD NOT include any other ICE-related attributes defined in
   Section 4 for that data stream.

3.4.1.1.3.  Adding a Data Stream

   If an agent wishes to add a new data stream, it sets the fields in
   the SDP for this data stream as if this was an initial offer for that
   data stream (see Section 3.2.1).  This will cause ICE processing to
   begin for this data stream.

3.4.1.2.  Procedures for Full Implementations

   This section describes additional procedures for full
   implementations, covering existing data streams.

3.4.1.2.1.  Before Nomination

   When an offerer sends a subsequent offer; in each "m=" section for
   which a candidate pair has not yet been nominated, the offer MUST
   include the same set of ICE-related information that the offerer
   included in the previous offer or answer.  The agent MAY include
   additional candidates it did not offer previously, but which it has
   gathered since the last offer/ answer exchange, including peer
   reflexive candidates.

   The agent MAY change the default destination for media.  As with
   initial offers, there MUST be a set of candidate attributes in the
   offer matching this default destination.

3.4.1.2.2.  After Nomination

   Once a candidate pair has been nominated for a data stream, the IP
   address, port and transport in each "c=" and "m=" line associated
   with that data stream MUST match the data associated with the
   nominated pair for that data stream.  In addition, the offerer only
   includes SDP candidates representing the local candidates of the
   nominated candidate pair.  The offerer MUST NOT include any other SDP
   candidate attributes in the subsequent offer.



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   In addition, if the agent is controlling, it MUST include the
   a=remote-candidates attribute for each data stream whose check list
   is in the completed state.  The attribute contains the remote
   candidates corresponding to the nominated pair in the valid list for
   each component of that data stream.  It is needed to avoid a race
   condition whereby the controlling agent chooses its pairs, but the
   updated offer beats the connectivity checks to the controlled agent,
   which doesn't even know these pairs are valid, let alone selected.
   See Appendix B for elaboration on this race condition.

3.4.1.3.  Procedures for Lite Implementations

   If the ICE state is running, a lite implementation MUST include all
   of its candidates for each component of each data stream in
   a=candidate attribute in any subsequent offer.  The candidates are
   formed identical to the procedures for initial offers.

   A lite implementation MUST NOT add additional host candidates in a
   subsequent offer.  If an agent needs to offer additional candidates,
   it MUST restart ICE.  Similarly, the username fragments or passwords
   MUST remain the same as used previously.  If an agent needs to change
   one of these, it MUST restart ICE for that media stream.

   If ICE has completed for a data stream and if the agent is
   controlled, the default destination for that data stream MUST be set
   to the remote candidate of the candidate pair for that component in
   the valid list.  For a lite implementation, there is always just a
   single candidate pair in the valid list for each component of a data
   stream.  Additionally, the agent MUST include a candidate attribute
   for each default destination.

   If ICE state is completed and if the agent is controlling (which only
   happens when both agents are lite), the agent MUST include the
   a=remote-candidates attribute for each data stream.  The attribute
   contains the remote candidates from the candidate pairs in the valid
   list (one pair for each component of each data stream).

3.4.2.  Sending Subsequent Answer

   If ICE is Completed for a data stream, and the offer for that data
   stream lacked the a=remote-candidates attribute, the rules for
   construction of the answer are identical to those for the offerer,
   except that the answerer MUST NOT include the a=remote-candidates
   attribute in the answer.

   A controlled agent will receive an offer with the a=remote-candidates
   attribute for a data stream when its peer has concluded ICE
   processing for that data stream.  This attribute is present in the



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   offer to deal with a race condition between the receipt of the offer,
   and the receipt of the Binding Response that tells the answerer the
   candidate that will be selected by ICE.  See Appendix B for an
   explanation of this race condition.  Consequently, processing of an
   offer with this attribute depends on the winner of the race.

   The agent forms a candidate pair for each component of the data
   stream by:

   o  Setting the remote candidate equal to the offerer's default
      destination for that component (i.e. the contents of the "m=" and
      "c=" lines for RTP, and the a=rtcp attribute for RTCP)

   o  Setting the local candidate equal to the transport address for
      that same component in the a=remote-candidates attribute in the
      offer.

   The agent then sees if each of these candidate pairs is present in
   the valid list.  If a particular pair is not in the valid list, the
   check has "lost" the race.  Call such a pair a "losing pair".

   The agent finds all the pairs in the check list whose remote
   candidates equal the remote candidate in the losing pair:

   o  If none of the pairs are In-Progress, and at least one is Failed,
      it is most likely that a network failure, such as a network
      partition or serious packet loss, has occurred.  The agent SHOULD
      generate an answer for this data stream as if the remote-
      candidates attribute had not been present, and then restart ICE
      for this stream.

   o  If at least one of the pairs is In-Progress, the agent SHOULD wait
      for those checks to complete, and as each completes, redo the
      processing in this section until there are no losing pairs.

   Once there are no losing pairs, the agent can generate the answer.
   It MUST set the default destination for media to the candidates in
   the remote-candidates attribute from the offer (each of which will
   now be the local candidate of a candidate pair in the valid list).
   It MUST include a candidate attribute in the answer for each
   candidate in the remote-candidates attribute in the offer.

3.4.2.1.  ICE Restart

   If the offerer in a subsequent offer requested an ICE restart for a
   data stream, and if the answerer accepts the offer, the answerer
   follows the procedures for generating an initial answer.




Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   For a given data stream, the answerer MAY include the same candidates
   that were used in the previous ICE session, but it MUST change the
   SDP ice-pwd and ice-ufrag attribute values.

3.4.2.2.  Lite Implementation specific procedures

   If the received offer contains the remote-candidates attribute for a
   data stream, the agent forms a candidate pair for each component of
   the data stream by:

   o  Setting the remote candidate equal to the offerer's default
      destination for that component (i.e., the contents of the "m=" and
      "c=" lines for RTP, and the a=rtcp attribute for RTCP).

   o  Setting the local candidate equal to the transport address for
      that same component in the a=remote-candidates attribute in the
      offer.

   The state of ICE processing for that data stream is set to Completed.

   Furthermore, if the agent believed it was controlling, but the offer
   contained the a=remote-candidates attribute, both agents believe they
   are controlling.  In this case, both would have sent updated offers
   around the same time.

   However, the signaling protocol carrying the offer/answer exchanges
   will have resolved this glare condition, so that one agent is always
   the 'winner' by having its offer received before its peer has sent an
   offer.  The winner takes the role of controlling, so that the loser
   (the answerer under consideration in this section) MUST change its
   role to controlled.

   Consequently, if the agent was going to send an updated offer since,
   based on the rules in section 8.2 of [ICE-BIS], it was controlling,
   it no longer needs to.

   Besides the potential role change, change in the Valid list, and
   state changes, the construction of the answer is performed
   identically to the construction of an offer.

3.4.3.  Receiving Answer for a Subsequent Offer

3.4.3.1.  Procedures for Full Implementations

   There may be certain situations where the offerer receives an SDP
   answer that lacks ICE candidates although the initial answer did.
   One example of such an "unexpected" answer might be happen when an
   ICE-unaware B2BUA introduces a media server during call hold using



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   3rd party call-control procedures.  Omitting further details how this
   is done, this could result in an answer being received at the holding
   UA that was constructed by the B2BUA.  With the B2BUA being ICE-
   unaware, that answer would not include ICE candidates.

   Receiving an answer without ICE attributes in this situation might be
   unexpected, but would not necessarily impair the user experience.

   When the offerer receives an answer indicating support for ICE, the
   offer performs on of the following actions:

   o  If the offer was a restart, the agent MUST perform ICE restart
      procedures as specified in Section 3.4.3.1.1

   o  If the offer/answer exchange removed a data stream, or an answer
      rejected an offered data stream, an agent MUST flush the Valid
      list for that data stream.  It MUST also terminate any STUN
      transactions in progress for that data stream.

   o  If the offer/answer exchange added a new data stream, the agent
      MUST create a new check list for it (and an empty Valid list to
      start of course) which in turn triggers the candidate processing
      procedures [ICE-BIS].

   o  If ICE state is running for a given data stream, the agent
      recomputes the check list.  If a pair on the new check list was
      also on the previous check list, and its state is not Frozen, its
      state is copied over.  Otherwise, its state is set to Frozen.  If
      none of the check lists are active (meaning that the pairs in each
      check list are Frozen), appropriate procedures in [ICE-BIS] are
      performed to move candidate(s) to the Waiting state to further
      continue ICE processing.

   o  If ICE state is completed and the SDP answer conforms to
      Section 3.4.2, the agent MUST reman in the ICE completed state.

   However, if the ICE support is no longer indicated in the SDP answer,
   the agent MUST fall-back to [RFC3264] procedures and SHOULD NOT drop
   the dialog because of the missing ICE support or unexpected answer.
   Once the agent sends a new offer later on, it MUST perform an ICE
   restart.

3.4.3.1.1.  ICE Restarts

   The agent MUST remember the nominated pair in the Valid list for each
   component of the data stream, called the previous selected pair prior
   to the restart.  The agent will continue to send media using this
   pair, as described in section 12 of [ICE-BIS].  Once these



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   destinations are noted, the agent MUST flush the valid and check
   lists, and then recompute the check list and its states, thus
   triggering the candidate processing procedures [ICE-BIS]

3.4.3.2.  Procedures for Lite Implementations

   If ICE is restarting for a data stream, the agent MUST start a new
   Valid list for that data stream.  It MUST remember the nominated pair
   in the previous Valid list for each component of the data stream,
   called the previous selected pairs, and continue to send media there
   as described in section 12 of [ICE-BIS].  The state of ICE processing
   for each data stream MUST change to Running, and the state of ICE
   processing MUST change to Running

4.  Grammar

   This specification defines eight new SDP attributes -- the
   "candidate", "remote-candidates", "ice-lite", "ice-mismatch", "ice-
   ufrag", "ice-pwd", "ice-pacing", and "ice-options" attributes.

   This section also provides non-normative examples of the attributes
   defined.

   The syntax for the attributes follow Augmented BNF as defined in
   [RFC5234].

4.1.  "candidate" Attribute

   The candidate attribute is a media-level attribute only.  It contains
   a transport address for a candidate that can be used for connectivity
   checks.




















Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   candidate-attribute   = "candidate" ":" foundation SP component-id SP
                           transport SP
                           priority SP
                           connection-address SP     ;from RFC 4566
                           port         ;port from RFC 4566
                           SP cand-type
                           [SP rel-addr]
                           [SP rel-port]
                           *(SP extension-att-name SP
                                extension-att-value)

   foundation            = 1*32ice-char
   component-id          = 1*5DIGIT
   transport             = "UDP" / transport-extension
   transport-extension   = token              ; from RFC 3261
   priority              = 1*10DIGIT
   cand-type             = "typ" SP candidate-types
   candidate-types       = "host" / "srflx" / "prflx" / "relay" / token
   rel-addr              = "raddr" SP connection-address
   rel-port              = "rport" SP port
   extension-att-name    = token
   extension-att-value   = *VCHAR
   ice-char              = ALPHA / DIGIT / "+" / "/"

   This grammar encodes the primary information about a candidate: its
   IP address, port and transport protocol, and its properties: the
   foundation, component ID, priority, type, and related transport
   address:

   <connection-address>:  is taken from RFC 4566 [RFC4566].  It is the
      IP address of the candidate.  When parsing this field, an agent
      can differentiate an IPv4 address and an IPv6 address by presence
      of a colon in its value -- the presence of a colon indicates IPv6.
      An agent MUST ignore candidate lines that include candidates with
      IP address versions that are not supported or recognized.

   <port>:  is also taken from RFC 4566 [RFC4566].  It is the port of
      the candidate.

   <transport>:  indicates the transport protocol for the candidate.
      This specification only defines UDP.  However, extensibility is
      provided to allow for future transport protocols to be used with
      ICE by extending the sub-registry "ICE Transport Protocols" under
      "Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)" registry.

   <foundation>:  is composed of 1 to 32 <ice-char>s.  It is an
      identifier that is equivalent for two candidates that are of the
      same type, share the same base, and come from the same STUN



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 16]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


      server.  The foundation is used to optimize ICE performance in the
      Frozen algorithm as described in [ICE-BIS]

   <component-id>:  is a positive integer between 1 and 256 (inclusive)
      that identifies the specific component of the dta stream for which
      this is a candidate.  It MUST start at 1 and MUST increment by 1
      for each component of a particular candidate.  For data streams
      based on RTP, candidates for the actual RTP media MUST have a
      component ID of 1, and candidates for RTCP MUST have a component
      ID of 2.  See section 13 in [ICE-BIS] for additional discussion on
      extending ICE to new data streams.

   <priority>:  is a positive integer between 1 and (2**31 - 1)
      inclusive.  The procedures for computing candidate's priority is
      described in section 5.1.2 of [ICE-BIS].

   <cand-type>:  encodes the type of candidate.  This specification
      defines the values "host", "srflx", "prflx", and "relay" for host,
      server reflexive, peer reflexive, and relayed candidates,
      respectively.  Specifications for new candidate types MUST define
      how, if at all, various steps in the ICE processing differ from
      the ones defined by this specification.

   <rel-addr> and <rel-port>:  convey transport addresses related to the
      candidate, useful for diagnostics and other purposes.  <rel-addr>
      and <rel-port> MUST be present for server reflexive, peer
      reflexive, and relayed candidates.  If a candidate is server or
      peer reflexive, <rel-addr> and <rel-port> are equal to the base
      for that server or peer reflexive candidate.  If the candidate is
      relayed, <rel-addr> and <rel-port> are equal to the mapped address
      in the Allocate response that provided the client with that
      relayed candidate (see Appendix B.3 of [ICE-BIS] for a discussion
      of its purpose).  If the candidate is a host candidate, <rel-addr>
      and <rel-port> MUST be omitted.

      In some cases, e.g., for privacy reasons, an agent may not want to
      reveal the related address and port.  In this case the address
      MUST be set to "0.0.0.0" (for IPv4 candidates) or "::" (for IPv6
      candidates) and the port to zero.

   The candidate attribute can itself be extended.  The grammar allows
   for new name/value pairs to be added at the end of the attribute.
   Such extensions MUST be made through IETF Review or IESG Approval
   [RFC5226] and the assignments MUST contain the specific extension and
   a reference to the document defining the usage of the extension

   An implementation MUST ignore any name/value pairs it doesn't
   understand.



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 17]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


Example: SDP line for UDP server reflexive candidate attribute for the RTP component

a=candidate:2 1 UDP 1694498815 192.0.2.3 45664 typ srflx raddr 10.0.1.1 rport 8998

4.2.  "remote-candidates" Attribute

   The syntax of the "remote-candidates" attribute is defined using
   Augmented BNF as defined in [RFC5234].  The remote-candidates
   attribute is a media-level attribute only.

   remote-candidate-att = "remote-candidates:" remote-candidate
                            0*(SP remote-candidate)
   remote-candidate = component-ID SP connection-address SP port

   The attribute contains a connection-address and port for each
   component.  The ordering of components is irrelevant.  However, a
   value MUST be present for each component of a data stream.  This
   attribute MUST be included in an offer by a controlling agent for a
   data stream that is Completed, and MUST NOT be included in any other
   case.

   Example: Remote candidates SDP lines for the RTP and RTCP components:

   a=remote-candidates:1 192.0.2.3 45664
   a=remote-candidates:2 192.0.2.3 45665

4.3.  "ice-lite" and "ice-mismatch" Attributes

   The syntax of the "ice-lite" and "ice-mismatch" attributes, both of
   which are flags, is:

   ice-lite               = "ice-lite"
   ice-mismatch           = "ice-mismatch"

   "ice-lite" is a session-level attribute only, and indicates that an
   agent is a lite implementation. "ice-mismatch" is a media-level
   attribute only, and when present in an answer, indicates that the
   offer arrived with a default destination for a media component that
   didn't have a corresponding candidate attribute.

4.4.  "ice-ufrag" and "ice-pwd" Attributes

   The "ice-ufrag" and "ice-pwd" attributes convey the username fragment
   and password used by ICE for message integrity.  Their syntax is:







Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 18]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   ice-pwd-att           = "ice-pwd:" password
   ice-ufrag-att         = "ice-ufrag:" ufrag
   password              = 22*256ice-char
   ufrag                 = 4*256ice-char

   The "ice-pwd" and "ice-ufrag" attributes can appear at either the
   session-level or media-level.  When present in both, the value in the
   media-level takes precedence.  Thus, the value at the session-level
   is effectively a default that applies to all data streams, unless
   overridden by a media-level value.  Whether present at the session or
   media-level, there MUST be an ice-pwd and ice-ufrag attribute for
   each data stream.  If two data streams have identical ice-ufrag's,
   they MUST have identical ice-pwd's.

   The ice-ufrag and ice-pwd attributes MUST be chosen randomly at the
   beginning of a session (the same applies when ICE is restarting for
   an agent).

   The ice-ufrag attribute MUST contain at least 24 bits of randomness,
   and the ice-pwd attribute MUST contain at least 128 bits of
   randomness.  This means that the ice-ufrag attribute will be at least
   4 characters long, and the ice-pwd at least 22 characters long, since
   the grammar for these attributes allows for 6 bits of information per
   character.  The attributes MAY be longer than 4 and 22 characters,
   respectively, of course, up to 256 characters.  The upper limit
   allows for buffer sizing in implementations.  Its large upper limit
   allows for increased amounts of randomness to be added over time.
   For compatibility with the 512 character limitation for the STUN
   username attribute value and for bandwidth conservation
   considerations, the ice-ufrag attribute MUST NOT be longer than 32
   characters when sending, but an implementation MUST accept up to 256
   characters when receiving.

   Example shows sample ice-ufrag and ice-pwd SDP lines:

   a=ice-pwd:asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg
   a=ice-ufrag:8hhY

4.5.  "ice-pacing" Attribute

   The "ice-pacing" is a session level attribute that indicates the
   desired connectivity check pacing, in milliseconds, for this agent
   (see section 14 of [ICE-BIS]).  The syntax is:

   ice-pacing-att            = "ice-pacing:" pacing-value
   pacing-value              = 1*10DIGIT





Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 19]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   Following the procedures defined in [ICE-BIS], a default value of
   50ms is used for an agent when ice-pacing attribute is omitted in the
   offer or the answer.

   The same rule applies for ice-pacing attribute values lower than
   50ms.  This mandates that, if an agent includes the ice-pacing
   attribute, its value MUST be greater than 50ms or else a value of
   50ms is considered by default for that agent.

   Also the larger of the ice-pacing attribute values between the offer
   and the answer (determined either by the one provided in the ice-
   pacing attribute or by picking the default value) MUST be considered
   for a given ICE session.

   Example shows ice-pacing value of 5 ms:

   a=ice-pacing:5

4.6.  "ice-options" Attribute

   The "ice-options" attribute is a session- and media-level attribute.
   It contains a series of tokens that identify the options supported by
   the agent.  Its grammar is:

   ice-options           = "ice-options:" ice-option-tag
                             0*(SP ice-option-tag)
   ice-option-tag        = 1*ice-char

   The existence of an ice-option in an offer indicates that a certain
   extension is supported by the agent and is willing to use it, if the
   peer agent also includes the same extension in the answer.  There
   might be further extension specific negotiation needed between the
   agents that determine how the extensions gets used in a given
   session.  The details of the negotiation procedures, if present, MUST
   be defined by the specification defining the extension (see
   Section 9.2).

   Example shows 'rtp+ecn' ice-option SDP line from <<RFC6679>>:

   a=ice-options:rtp+ecn

5.  Keepalives

   All the ICE agents MUST follow the procedures defined in section 11
   of [ICE-BIS] for sending keepalives.  The keepalives MUST be sent
   regardless of whether the data stream is currently inactive,
   sendonly, recvonly, or sendrecv, and regardless of the presence or
   value of the bandwidth attribute.  An agent can determine that its



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 20]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   peer supports ICE by the presence of a=candidate attributes for each
   media session.

6.  SIP Considerations

   Note that ICE is not intended for NAT traversal for SIP, which is
   assumed to be provided via another mechanism [RFC5626].

   When ICE is used with SIP, forking may result in a single offer
   generating a multiplicity of answers.  In that case, ICE proceeds
   completely in parallel and independently for each answer, treating
   the combination of its offer and each answer as an independent offer/
   answer exchange, with its own set of local candidates, pairs, check
   lists, states, and so on.

   Once ICE processing has reached the Completed state for all peers for
   media streams using those candidates, the agent SHOULD wait an
   additional three seconds, and then it MAY cease responding to checks
   or generating triggered checks on that candidate.  It MAY free the
   candidate at that time.  Freeing of server reflexive candidates is
   never explicit; it happens by lack of a keepalive.  The three-second
   delay handles cases when aggressive nomination is used, and the
   selected pairs can quickly change after ICE has completed.

6.1.  Latency Guidelines

   ICE requires a series of STUN-based connectivity checks to take place
   between endpoints.  These checks start from the answerer on
   generation of its answer, and start from the offerer when it receives
   the answer.  These checks can take time to complete, and as such, the
   selection of messages to use with offers and answers can affect
   perceived user latency.  Two latency figures are of particular
   interest.  These are the post-pickup delay and the post-dial delay.
   The post-pickup delay refers to the time between when a user "answers
   the phone" and when any speech they utter can be delivered to the
   caller.  The post-dial delay refers to the time between when a user
   enters the destination address for the user and ringback begins as a
   consequence of having successfully started alerting the called user
   agent.

   Two cases can be considered -- one where the offer is present in the
   initial INVITE and one where it is in a response.

6.1.1.  Offer in INVITE

   To reduce post-dial delays, it is RECOMMENDED that the caller begin
   gathering candidates prior to actually sending its initial INVITE.




Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 21]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   This can be started upon user interface cues that a call is pending,
   such as activity on a keypad or the phone going off-hook.

   On the receipt of the offer, the answerer SHOULD generate an answer
   in a provisional response once it has completed candidate gathering.
   ICE requires that a provisional response with an SDP be transmitted
   reliably.  This can be done through the existing Provisional Response
   Acknowledgment (PRACK) mechanism [RFC3262] or through an ICE specific
   optimization, wherein, the agent retransmits the provisional response
   with the exponential backoff timers described in [RFC3262].  Such
   retransmissions MUST cease on receipt of a STUN Binding request for
   one of the data streams signaled in that SDP or on transmission of
   the answer in a 2xx response.  If no Binding request is received
   prior to the last retransmit, the agent does not consider the session
   terminated.  For the ICE lite peers, the agent MUST cease
   retransmitting the 18x after sending it four times (ICE will actually
   work even if the peer never receives the 18x; however, experience has
   shown that sending it is important for middleboxes and firewall
   traversal).

   It should be noted that the ICE specific optimization is very
   specific to provisional response carrying answers that start ICE
   processing and it is not a general technique for 1xx reliability.
   Also such an optimization SHOULD NOT be used if both agents support
   PRACK.

   Despite the fact that the provisional response will be delivered
   reliably, the rules for when an agent can send an updated offer or
   answer do not change from those specified in [RFC3262].
   Specifically, if the INVITE contained an offer, the same answer
   appears in all of the 1xx and in the 2xx response to the INVITE.
   Only after that 2xx has been sent can an updated offer/answer
   exchange occur.

   Alternatively, an agent MAY delay sending an answer until the 200 OK;
   however, this results in a poor user experience and is NOT
   RECOMMENDED.

   Once the answer has been sent, the agent SHOULD begin its
   connectivity checks.  Once candidate pairs for each component of a
   data stream enter the valid list, the answerer can begin sending
   media on that data stream.

   However, prior to this point, any media that needs to be sent towards
   the caller (such as SIP early media [RFC3960]) MUST NOT be
   transmitted.  For this reason, implementations SHOULD delay alerting
   the called party until candidates for each component of each data
   stream have entered the valid list.  In the case of a PSTN gateway,



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 22]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   this would mean that the setup message into the PSTN is delayed until
   this point.  Doing this increases the post-dial delay, but has the
   effect of eliminating 'ghost rings'.  Ghost rings are cases where the
   called party hears the phone ring, picks up, but hears nothing and
   cannot be heard.  This technique works without requiring support for,
   or usage of, preconditions [RFC3312].  It also has the benefit of
   guaranteeing that not a single packet of media will get clipped, so
   that post-pickup delay is zero.  If an agent chooses to delay local
   alerting in this way, it SHOULD generate a 180 response once alerting
   begins.

6.1.2.  Offer in Response

   In addition to uses where the offer is in an INVITE, and the answer
   is in the provisional and/or 200 OK response, ICE works with cases
   where the offer appears in the response.  In such cases, which are
   common in third party call control [RFC3725], ICE agents SHOULD
   generate their offers in a reliable provisional response (which MUST
   utilize [RFC3262]), and not alert the user on receipt of the INVITE.
   The answer will arrive in a PRACK.  This allows for ICE processing to
   take place prior to alerting, so that there is no post-pickup delay,
   at the expense of increased call setup delays.  Once ICE completes,
   the callee can alert the user and then generate a 200 OK when they
   answer.  The 200 OK would contain no SDP, since the offer/answer
   exchange has completed.

   Alternatively, agents MAY place the offer in a 2xx instead (in which
   case the answer comes in the ACK).  When this happens, the callee
   will alert the user on receipt of the INVITE, and the ICE exchanges
   will take place only after the user answers.  This has the effect of
   reducing call setup delay, but can cause substantial post-pickup
   delays and media clipping.

6.2.  SIP Option Tags and Media Feature Tags

   [RFC5768] specifies a SIP option tag and media feature tag for usage
   with ICE.  ICE implementations using SIP SHOULD support this
   specification, which uses a feature tag in registrations to
   facilitate interoperability through signaling intermediaries.

6.3.  Interactions with Forking

   ICE interacts very well with forking.  Indeed, ICE fixes some of the
   problems associated with forking.  Without ICE, when a call forks and
   the caller receives multiple incoming data streams, it cannot
   determine which data stream corresponds to which callee.





Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 23]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   With ICE, this problem is resolved.  The connectivity checks which
   occur prior to transmission of media carry username fragments, which
   in turn are correlated to a specific callee.  Subsequent media
   packets that arrive on the same candidate pair as the connectivity
   check will be associated with that same callee.  Thus, the caller can
   perform this correlation as long as it has received an answer.

6.4.  Interactions with Preconditions

   Quality of Service (QoS) preconditions, which are defined in
   [RFC3312] and [RFC4032], apply only to the transport addresses listed
   as the default targets for media in an offer/answer.  If ICE changes
   the transport address where media is received, this change is
   reflected in an updated offer that changes the default destination
   for media to match ICE's selection.  As such, it appears like any
   other re-INVITE would, and is fully treated in RFCs 3312 and 4032,
   which apply without regard to the fact that the destination for media
   is changing due to ICE negotiations occurring "in the background".

   Indeed, an agent SHOULD NOT indicate that QoS preconditions have been
   met until the checks have completed and selected the candidate pairs
   to be used for media.

   ICE also has (purposeful) interactions with connectivity
   preconditions [RFC5898].  Those interactions are described there.
   Note that the procedures described in Section 6.1 describe their own
   type of "preconditions", albeit with less functionality than those
   provided by the explicit preconditions in [RFC5898].

6.5.  Interactions with Third Party Call Control

   ICE works with Flows I, III, and IV as described in [RFC3725].  Flow
   I works without the controller supporting or being aware of ICE.
   Flow IV will work as long as the controller passes along the ICE
   attributes without alteration.  Flow II is fundamentally incompatible
   with ICE; each agent will believe itself to be the answerer and thus
   never generate a re-INVITE.

   The flows for continued operation, as described in Section 7 of
   [RFC3725], require additional behavior of ICE implementations to
   support.  In particular, if an agent receives a mid-dialog re-INVITE
   that contains no offer, it MUST restart ICE for each data stream and
   go through the process of gathering new candidates.  Furthermore,
   that list of candidates SHOULD include the ones currently being used
   for media.






Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 24]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


7.  Relationship with ANAT

   [RFC4091], the Alternative Network Address Types (ANAT) Semantics for
   the SDP grouping framework, and [RFC4092], its usage with SIP, define
   a mechanism for indicating that an agent can support both IPv4 and
   IPv6 for a data stream, and it does so by including two "m=" lines,
   one for v4 and one for v6.  This is similar to ICE, which allows for
   an agent to indicate multiple transport addresses using the candidate
   attribute.  However, ANAT relies on static selection to pick between
   choices, rather than a dynamic connectivity check used by ICE.

   It is RECOMMENDED that ICE be used in realizing the dual-stack use-
   cases in agents that support ICE.

8.  Security Considerations

8.1.  Attacks on the Offer/Answer Exchanges

   An attacker that can modify or disrupt the offer/answer exchanges
   themselves can readily launch a variety of attacks with ICE.  They
   could direct media to a target of a DoS attack, they could insert
   themselves into the data stream, and so on.  These are similar to the
   general security considerations for offer/answer exchanges, and the
   security considerations in [RFC3264] apply.  These require techniques
   for message integrity and encryption for offers and answers, which
   are satisfied by the TLS mechanism [RFC3261] when SIP is used.  As
   such, the usage of TLS with ICE is RECOMMENDED.

8.2.  Insider Attacks

   In addition to attacks where the attacker is a third party trying to
   insert fake offers, answers, or STUN messages, there are several
   attacks possible with ICE when the attacker is an authenticated and
   valid participant in the ICE exchange.

8.2.1.  The Voice Hammer Attack

   The voice hammer attack is an amplification attack.  In this attack,
   the attacker initiates sessions to other agents, and maliciously
   includes the IP address and port of a DoS target as the destination
   for media traffic signaled in the SDP.  This causes substantial
   amplification; a single offer/answer exchange can create a continuing
   flood of media packets, possibly at high rates (consider video
   sources).  This attack is not specific to ICE, but ICE can help
   provide remediation.

   Specifically, if ICE is used, the agent receiving the malicious SDP
   will first perform connectivity checks to the target of media before



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 25]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   sending media there.  If this target is a third-party host, the
   checks will not succeed, and media is never sent.

   Unfortunately, ICE doesn't help if it's not used, in which case an
   attacker could simply send the offer without the ICE parameters.
   However, in environments where the set of clients is known, and is
   limited to ones that support ICE, the server can reject any offers or
   answers that don't indicate ICE support.

   SIP User Agents (UA) [RFC3261] that are not willing to receive non-
   ICE answers MUST include an "ice" Option Tag in the SIP Require
   Header Field in their offer.  UAs that rejects non-ICE offers SHOULD
   use a 421 response code, together with an Option Tag "ice" in the
   Require Header Field in the response.

8.2.2.  Interactions with Application Layer Gateways and SIP

   Application Layer Gateways (ALGs) are functions present in a Network
   Address Translation (NAT) device that inspect the contents of packets
   and modify them, in order to facilitate NAT traversal for application
   protocols.  Session Border Controllers (SBCs) are close cousins of
   ALGs, but are less transparent since they actually exist as
   application-layer SIP intermediaries.  ICE has interactions with SBCs
   and ALGs.

   If an ALG is SIP aware but not ICE aware, ICE will work through it as
   long as the ALG correctly modifies the SDP.  A correct ALG
   implementation behaves as follows:

   o  The ALG does not modify the "m=" and "c=" lines or the rtcp
      attribute if they contain external addresses.

   o  If the "m=" and "c=" lines contain internal addresses, the
      modification depends on the state of the ALG:

      *  If the ALG already has a binding established that maps an
         external port to an internal IP address and port matching the
         values in the "m=" and "c=" lines or rtcp attribute, the ALG
         uses that binding instead of creating a new one.

      *  If the ALG does not already have a binding, it creates a new
         one and modifies the SDP, rewriting the "m=" and "c=" lines and
         rtcp attribute.

   Unfortunately, many ALGs are known to work poorly in these corner
   cases.  ICE does not try to work around broken ALGs, as this is
   outside the scope of its functionality.  ICE can help diagnose these
   conditions, which often show up as a mismatch between the set of



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 26]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   candidates and the "m=" and "c=" lines and rtcp attributes.  The ice-
   mismatch attribute is used for this purpose.

   ICE works best through ALGs when the signaling is run over TLS.  This
   prevents the ALG from manipulating the SDP messages and interfering
   with ICE operation.  Implementations that are expected to be deployed
   behind ALGs SHOULD provide for TLS transport of the SDP.

   If an SBC is SIP aware but not ICE aware, the result depends on the
   behavior of the SBC.  If it is acting as a proper Back-to-Back User
   Agent (B2BUA), the SBC will remove any SDP attributes it doesn't
   understand, including the ICE attributes.  Consequently, the call
   will appear to both endpoints as if the other side doesn't support
   ICE.  This will result in ICE being disabled, and media flowing
   through the SBC, if the SBC has requested it.  If, however, the SBC
   passes the ICE attributes without modification, yet modifies the
   default destination for media (contained in the "m=" and "c=" lines
   and rtcp attribute), this will be detected as an ICE mismatch, and
   ICE processing is aborted for the call.  It is outside of the scope
   of ICE for it to act as a tool for "working around" SBCs.  If one is
   present, ICE will not be used and the SBC techniques take precedence.

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  SDP Attributes

   The original ICE specification defined seven new SDP attributes per
   the procedures of Section 8.2.4 of [RFC4566].  The registration
   information from the original specification is included here with
   modifications to include Mux Category and also defines a new SDP
   attribute 'ice-pacing'.

9.1.1.  candidate Attribute

   Attribute Name:  candidate

   Type of Attribute:  media-level

   Subject to charset:  No

   Purpose:  This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
      Establishment (ICE), and provides one of many possible candidate
      addresses for communication.  These addresses are validated with
      an end-to-end connectivity check using Session Traversal Utilities
      for NAT (STUN).

   Appropriate Values:  See Section 4 of RFC XXXX.




Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 27]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   Contact Name:  IESG

   Contact e-mail:  iesg@ietf.org [1]

   Reference:  RFCXXXX

   Mux Category:  TRANSPORT

9.1.2.  remote-candidates Attribute

   Attribute Name:  remote-candidates

   Type of Attribute:  media-level

   Subject to charset:  No

   Purpose:  This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
      Establishment (ICE), and provides the identity of the remote
      candidates that the offerer wishes the answerer to use in its
      answer.

   Appropriate Values:  See Section 4 of RFC XXXX.

   Contact Name:  IESG

   Contact e-mail:  iesg@ietf.org [2]

   Reference:  RFCXXXX

   Mux Category:  TRANSPORT

9.1.3.  ice-lite Attribute

   Attribute Name:  ice-lite

   Type of Attribute:  session-level

   Subject to charset:  No

   Purpose:  This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
      Establishment (ICE), and indicates that an agent has the minimum
      functionality required to support ICE inter-operation with a peer
      that has a full implementation.

   Appropriate Values:  See Section 4 of RFC XXXX.

   Contact Name:  IESG




Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 28]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   Contact e-mail:  iesg@ietf.org [3]

   Reference:  RFCXXXX

   Mux Category:  NORMAL

9.1.4.  ice-mismatch Attribute

   Attribute Name:  ice-mismatch

   Type of Attribute:  media-level

   Subject to charset:  No

   Purpose:  This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
      Establishment (ICE), and indicates that an agent is ICE capable,
      but did not proceed with ICE due to a mismatch of candidates with
      the default destination for media signaled in the SDP.

   Appropriate Values:  See Section 4 of RFC XXXX.

   Contact Name:  IESG

   Contact e-mail:  iesg@ietf.org [4]

   Reference:  RFCXXXX

   Mux Category:  NORMAL

9.1.5.  ice-pwd Attribute

   Attribute Name:  ice-pwd

   Type of Attribute:  session- or media-level

   Subject to charset:  No

   Purpose:  This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
      Establishment (ICE), and provides the password used to protect
      STUN connectivity checks.

   Appropriate Values:  See Section 4 of RFC XXXX.

   Contact Name:  IESG

   Contact e-mail:  iesg@ietf.org [5]

   Reference:  RFCXXXX



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 29]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   Mux Category:  TRANSPORT

9.1.6.  ice-ufrag Attribute

   Attribute Name:  ice-ufrag

   Type of Attribute:  session- or media-level

   Subject to charset:  No

   Purpose:  This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
      Establishment (ICE), and provides the fragments used to construct
      the username in STUN connectivity checks.

   Appropriate Values:  See Section 4 of RFC XXXX.

   Contact Name:  IESG

   Contact e-mail:  iesg@ietf.org [6]

   Reference:  RFCXXXX

   Mux Category:  TRANSPORT

9.1.7.  ice-options Attribute

   Attribute Name:  ice-options

   Long Form:  ice-options

   Type of Attribute:  session-level

   Subject to charset:  No

   Purpose:  This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
      Establishment (ICE), and indicates the ICE options or extensions
      used by the agent.

   Appropriate Values:  See Section 4 of RFC XXXX.

   Contact Name:  IESG

   Contact e-mail:  iesg@ietf.org [7]

   Reference:  RFCXXXX

   Mux Category:  NORMAL




Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 30]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


9.1.8.  ice-pacing Attribute

   This specification also defines a new SDP attribute, "ice-pacing"
   according to the following data:

   Attribute Name:  ice-pacing

   Type of Attribute:  session-level

   Subject to charset:  No

   Purpose:  This attribute is used with Interactive Connectivity
      Establishment (ICE) to indicate desired connectivity check pacing
      values.

   Appropriate Values:  See Section 4 of RFC XXXX.

   Contact Name:  IESG

   Contact e-mail:  iesg@ietf.org [8]

   Reference:  RFCXXXX

   Mux Category:  NORMAL

9.2.  Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options Registry

   IANA maintains a registry for ice-options identifiers under the
   Specification Required policy as defined in "Guidelines for Writing
   an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs" [RFC5226].

   ICE options are of unlimited length according to the syntax in
   Section 4.6; however, they are RECOMMENDED to be no longer than 20
   characters.  This is to reduce message sizes and allow for efficient
   parsing.  ICE options are defined at the session leve..

   A registration request MUST include the following information:

   o  The ICE option identifier to be registered

   o  Name, Email, and Address of a contact person for the registration

   o  Organization or individuals having the change control

   o  Short description of the ICE extension to which the option relates

   o  Reference(s) to the specification defining the ICE option and the
      related extensions



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 31]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


10.  Acknowledgments

   A large part of the text in this document was taken from [RFC5245],
   authored by Jonathan Rosenberg.

   Some of the text in this document was taken from [RFC6336], authored
   by Magnus Westerlund and Colin Perkins.

   Many thanks to Christer Holmberg for providing text suggestions in
   Section 3 that aligns with [ICE-BIS]

   Thanks to Thomas Stach for text help, Roman Shpount for suggesting
   RTCP candidate handling and Simon Perreault for advising on IPV6
   address selection when candidate-address includes FQDN.

   Many thanks to Flemming Andreasen for shepherd review feedback.

   Thanks to following experts for their reviews and constructive
   feedback: Christer Holmberg, Adam Roach, Peter Saint-Andre and the
   MMUSIC WG.

11.  References

11.1.  Normative References

   [ICE-BIS]  Keranen, A. and J. Rosenberg, "Interactive Connectivity
              Establishment (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address
              Translator (NAT) Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols",
              draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-00 (work in progress), March
              2015.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>.

   [RFC3261]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston,
              A., Peterson, J., Sparks, R., Handley, M., and E.
              Schooler, "SIP: Session Initiation Protocol", RFC 3261,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3261, June 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3261>.

   [RFC3262]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "Reliability of
              Provisional Responses in Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 3262, DOI 10.17487/RFC3262, June 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3262>.





Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 32]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3264, June 2002,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3264>.

   [RFC3312]  Camarillo, G., Ed., Marshall, W., Ed., and J. Rosenberg,
              "Integration of Resource Management and Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3312, DOI 10.17487/RFC3312, October
              2002, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3312>.

   [RFC3556]  Casner, S., "Session Description Protocol (SDP) Bandwidth
              Modifiers for RTP Control Protocol (RTCP) Bandwidth",
              RFC 3556, DOI 10.17487/RFC3556, July 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3556>.

   [RFC3605]  Huitema, C., "Real Time Control Protocol (RTCP) attribute
              in Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3605,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC3605, October 2003,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3605>.

   [RFC4032]  Camarillo, G. and P. Kyzivat, "Update to the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP) Preconditions Framework",
              RFC 4032, DOI 10.17487/RFC4032, March 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4032>.

   [RFC4091]  Camarillo, G. and J. Rosenberg, "The Alternative Network
              Address Types (ANAT) Semantics for the Session Description
              Protocol (SDP) Grouping Framework", RFC 4091, June 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4091>.

   [RFC4092]  Camarillo, G. and J. Rosenberg, "Usage of the Session
              Description Protocol (SDP) Alternative Network Address
              Types (ANAT) Semantics in the Session Initiation Protocol
              (SIP)", RFC 4092, June 2005,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4092>.

   [RFC4566]  Handley, M., Jacobson, V., and C. Perkins, "SDP: Session
              Description Protocol", RFC 4566, DOI 10.17487/RFC4566,
              July 2006, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4566>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.







Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 33]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   [RFC5234]  Crocker, D., Ed. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", STD 68, RFC 5234,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5234, January 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5234>.

   [RFC5245]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5245, April 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5245>.

   [RFC5768]  Rosenberg, J., "Indicating Support for Interactive
              Connectivity Establishment (ICE) in the Session Initiation
              Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5768, DOI 10.17487/RFC5768, April
              2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5768>.

   [RFC6336]  Westerlund, M. and C. Perkins, "IANA Registry for
              Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Options",
              RFC 6336, April 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6336>.

11.2.  Informative References

   [RFC3725]  Rosenberg, J., Peterson, J., Schulzrinne, H., and G.
              Camarillo, "Best Current Practices for Third Party Call
              Control (3pcc) in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              BCP 85, RFC 3725, DOI 10.17487/RFC3725, April 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3725>.

   [RFC3960]  Camarillo, G. and H. Schulzrinne, "Early Media and Ringing
              Tone Generation in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)",
              RFC 3960, DOI 10.17487/RFC3960, December 2004,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3960>.

   [RFC5626]  Jennings, C., Ed., Mahy, R., Ed., and F. Audet, Ed.,
              "Managing Client-Initiated Connections in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 5626,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5626, October 2009,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5626>.

   [RFC5898]  Andreasen, F., Camarillo, G., Oran, D., and D. Wing,
              "Connectivity Preconditions for Session Description
              Protocol (SDP) Media Streams", RFC 5898,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5898, July 2010,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5898>.






Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 34]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


11.3.  URIs

   [1] mailto:iesg@ietf.org

   [2] mailto:iesg@ietf.org

   [3] mailto:iesg@ietf.org

   [4] mailto:iesg@ietf.org

   [5] mailto:iesg@ietf.org

   [6] mailto:iesg@ietf.org

   [7] mailto:iesg@ietf.org

   [8] mailto:iesg@ietf.org

   [9] mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com

   [10] mailto:rshpount@turbobridge.com

   [11] mailto:thomass.stach@gmail.com

Appendix A.  Examples

   For the example shown in section 16 of [ICE-BIS] the resulting offer
   (message 5) encoded in SDP looks like:

   v=0
   o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP6 $L-PRIV-1.IP
   s=
   c=IN IP6 $NAT-PUB-1.IP
   t=0 0
   a=ice-pwd:asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg
   a=ice-ufrag:8hhY
   m=audio $NAT-PUB-1.PORT RTP/AVP 0
   b=RS:0
   b=RR:0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=candidate:1 1 UDP 2130706431 $L-PRIV-1.IP $L-PRIV-1.PORT typ host
   a=candidate:2 1 UDP 1694498815 $NAT-PUB-1.IP $NAT-PUB-1.PORT typ
    srflx raddr $L-PRIV-1.IP rport $L-PRIV-1.PORT

   The offer, with the variables replaced with their values, will look
   like (lines folded for clarity):





Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 35]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


v=0
o=jdoe 2890844526 2890842807 IN IP6 fe80::6676:baff:fe9c:ee4a
s=
c=IN IP6 2001:420:c0e0:1005::61
t=0 0
a=ice-pwd:asd88fgpdd777uzjYhagZg
a=ice-ufrag:8hhY
m=audio 45664 RTP/AVP 0
b=RS:0
b=RR:0
a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
a=candidate:1 1 UDP 2130706431 fe80::6676:baff:fe9c:ee4a 8998 typ host
a=candidate:2 1 UDP 1694498815 2001:420:c0e0:1005::61 45664 typ srflx raddr
 fe80::6676:baff:fe9c:ee4a rport 8998

   The resulting answer looks like:

   v=0
   o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 $R-PUB-1.IP
   s=
   c=IN IP4 $R-PUB-1.IP
   t=0 0
   a=ice-pwd:YH75Fviy6338Vbrhrlp8Yh
   a=ice-ufrag:9uB6
   m=audio $R-PUB-1.PORT RTP/AVP 0
   b=RS:0
   b=RR:0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=candidate:1 1 UDP 2130706431 $R-PUB-1.IP $R-PUB-1.PORT typ host

   With the variables filled in:

   v=0
   o=bob 2808844564 2808844564 IN IP4 192.0.2.1
   s=
   c=IN IP4 192.0.2.1
   t=0 0
   a=ice-pwd:YH75Fviy6338Vbrhrlp8Yh
   a=ice-ufrag:9uB6
   m=audio 3478 RTP/AVP 0
   b=RS:0
   b=RR:0
   a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000
   a=candidate:1 1 UDP 2130706431 192.0.2.1 3478 typ host







Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 36]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


Appendix B.  The remote-candidates Attribute

   The a=remote-candidates attribute exists to eliminate a race
   condition between the updated offer and the response to the STUN
   Binding request that moved a candidate into the Valid list.  This
   race condition is shown in Figure 1.  On receipt of message 4, agent
   L adds a candidate pair to the valid list.  If there was only a
   single data stream with a single component, agent L could now send an
   updated offer.  However, the check from agent R has not yet generated
   a response, and agent R receives the updated offer (message 7) before
   getting the response (message 9).  Thus, it does not yet know that
   this particular pair is valid.  To eliminate this condition, the
   actual candidates at R that were selected by the offerer (the remote
   candidates) are included in the offer itself, and the answerer delays
   its answer until those pairs validate.

   Agent L               Network               Agent R
      |(1) Offer            |                     |
      |------------------------------------------>|
      |(2) Answer           |                     |
      |<------------------------------------------|
      |(3) STUN Req.        |                     |
      |------------------------------------------>|
      |(4) STUN Res.        |                     |
      |<------------------------------------------|
      |(5) STUN Req.        |                     |
      |<------------------------------------------|
      |(6) STUN Res.        |                     |
      |-------------------->|                     |
      |                     |Lost                 |
      |(7) Offer            |                     |
      |------------------------------------------>|
      |(8) STUN Req.        |                     |
      |<------------------------------------------|
      |(9) STUN Res.        |                     |
      |------------------------------------------>|
      |(10) Answer          |                     |
      |<------------------------------------------|

                       Figure 1: Race Condition Flow

Appendix C.  Why Is the Conflict Resolution Mechanism Needed?

   When ICE runs between two peers, one agent acts as controlled, and
   the other as controlling.  Rules are defined as a function of
   implementation type and offerer/answerer to determine who is
   controlling and who is controlled.  However, the specification
   mentions that, in some cases, both sides might believe they are



Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 37]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   controlling, or both sides might believe they are controlled.  How
   can this happen?

   The condition when both agents believe they are controlled shows up
   in third party call control cases.  Consider the following flow:

             A         Controller          B
             |(1) INV()     |              |
             |<-------------|              |
             |(2) 200(SDP1) |              |
             |------------->|              |
             |              |(3) INV()     |
             |              |------------->|
             |              |(4) 200(SDP2) |
             |              |<-------------|
             |(5) ACK(SDP2) |              |
             |<-------------|              |
             |              |(6) ACK(SDP1) |
             |              |------------->|

                       Figure 2: Role Conflict Flow

   This flow is a variation on flow III of RFC 3725 [RFC3725].  In fact,
   it works better than flow III since it produces fewer messages.  In
   this flow, the controller sends an offerless INVITE to agent A, which
   responds with its offer, SDP1.  The agent then sends an offerless
   INVITE to agent B, which it responds to with its offer, SDP2.  The
   controller then uses the offer from each agent to generate the
   answers.  When this flow is used, ICE will run between agents A and
   B, but both will believe they are in the controlling role.  With the
   role conflict resolution procedures, this flow will function properly
   when ICE is used.

   At this time, there are no documented flows that can result in the
   case where both agents believe they are controlled.  However, the
   conflict resolution procedures allow for this case, should a flow
   arise that would fit into this category.

Appendix D.  Why Send an Updated Offer?

   Section 11.1 describes rules for sending media.  Both agents can send
   media once ICE checks complete, without waiting for an updated offer.
   Indeed, the only purpose of the updated offer is to "correct" the SDP
   so that the default destination for media matches where media is
   being sent based on ICE procedures (which will be the highest-
   priority nominated candidate pair).





Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 38]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   This begs the question -- why is the updated offer/answer exchange
   needed at all?  Indeed, in a pure offer/answer environment, it would
   not be.  The offerer and answerer will agree on the candidates to use
   through ICE, and then can begin using them.  As far as the agents
   themselves are concerned, the updated offer/answer provides no new
   information.  However, in practice, numerous components along the
   signaling path look at the SDP information.  These include entities
   performing off-path QoS reservations, NAT traversal components such
   as ALGs and Session Border Controllers (SBCs), and diagnostic tools
   that passively monitor the network.  For these tools to continue to
   function without change, the core property of SDP -- that the
   existing, pre-ICE definitions of the addresses used for media -- the
   "m=" and "c=" lines and the rtcp attribute -- must be retained.  For
   this reason, an updated offer must be sent.

Appendix E.  Contributors

   Following experts have contributed textual and structural
   improvements for this work

   1.  Christer Holmberg

       *  Ericsson

       *  Email: christer.holmberg@ericsson.com [9]

   2.  Roman Shpount

       *  TurboBridge

       *  rshpount@turbobridge.com [10]

   3.  Thomas Stach

       *  thomass.stach@gmail.com [11]

Authors' Addresses

   Marc Petit-Huguenin
   Impedance Mismatch

   Email: marc@petit-huguenin.org









Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 39]


Internet-Draft                ICE SDP Usage                 October 2018


   Suhas Nandakumar
   Cisco Systems
   707 Tasman Dr
   Milpitas, CA  95035
   USA

   Email: snandaku@cisco.com


   Ari Keranen
   Ericsson
   Jorvas  02420
   Finland

   Email: ari.keranen@ericsson.com




































Petit-Huguenin, et al.   Expires April 12, 2019                [Page 40]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.127, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/