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

Versions: 00 01 draft-ivov-mmusic-trickle-ice

Network Working Group                                        E. Rescorla
Internet-Draft                                                RTFM, Inc.
Intended status: Standards Track                               J. Uberti
Expires: April 26, 2013                                           Google
                                                                 E. Ivov
                                                                   Jitsi
                                                        October 23, 2012


Trickle ICE: Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive
               Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Protocol
                  draft-rescorla-mmusic-ice-trickle-01

Abstract

   This document describes an extension to the Interactive Connectivity
   Establishment (ICE) protocol that allows ICE agents to send and
   receive candidates incrementally rather than exchanging complete
   lists.  With such incremental provisioning, ICE agents can begin
   connectivity checks while they are still gathering candidates and
   considerably shorten the time necessary for ICE processing to
   complete.

   The above mechanism is also referred to as "trickle ICE".

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 26, 2013.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2012 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



Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                 [Page 1]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


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


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  Terminology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   3.  Incompatibility with Standard ICE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   4.  Detecting Support for Trickle ICE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
   5.  Relationship to the Offer/Answer Model . . . . . . . . . . . .  6
   6.  Sending the Initial Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7
   7.  Receiving the Initial Description  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.1.  Responding to an Initial ICE Description . . . . . . . . .  8
     7.2.  Forming check lists and beginning connectivity checks  . .  9
   8.  Receiving a Response to the Initial ICE Description  . . . . .  9
   9.  Performing Connectivity Checks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
     9.1.  Check List and Timer State Updates . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   10. Learning and Sending Additional Local Candidates . . . . . . . 10
     10.1. Announcing End of Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   11. Receiving Additional Remote Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
   12. Concluding ICE Processing with Trickle ICE . . . . . . . . . . 12
   13. Interaction with non-Trickle ICE implementations . . . . . . . 13
   14. Example Flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   15. Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   16. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
   17. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     17.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     17.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
   Appendix A.  Open issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
   Appendix B.  Changes From Earlier Versions . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     B.1.  Changes From Individual Submission Draft -00 . . . . . . . 15
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15












Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                 [Page 2]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


1.  Introduction

   The Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) protocol [RFC5245]
   describes mechanisms for gathering, candidates, prioritizing them,
   choosing default ones, exchanging them with the remote party, pairing
   them and ordering them into check lists.  Once all of the above have
   been completed, and only then, the participating agents can begin a
   phase of connectivity checks and eventually select the pair of
   candidates that will be used in the following session.

   While the above sequence has the advantage of being relatively
   straightforward to implement and debug once deployed, it may also
   prove to be rather lengthy.  Gathering candidates or candidate
   harvesting would often involve things like querying STUN [RFC5389]
   servers, discovering UPnP devices, and allocating relayed candidates
   at TURN [RFC5766] servers.  All of these can be delayed for a
   noticeable amount of time and while they can be run in parallel, they
   still need to respect the pacing requirements from [RFC5245], which
   is likely to delay them even further.  Some or all of the above would
   also have to be completed by the remote agent.  Both agents would
   next perform connectivity checks and only then would they be ready to
   begin streaming media.

   All of the above could lead to relatively lengthy session
   establishment times and degraded user experience.

   The purpose of this document is to define an alternative mode of
   operation for ICE implementations, also known as "trickle ICE", where
   candidates can be exchanged incrementally.  This would allow ICE
   agents to exchange host candidates as soon as a session has been
   initiated.  Connectivity checks for a media stream would also start
   as soon as the first candidates for that stream have become
   available.

   Trickle ICE allows reducing session establishment times in cases
   where connectivity is confirmed for the first exchanged candidates
   (e.g. where the host candidates for one of the agents are directly
   reachable from the second agent).  Even when this is not the case,
   running candidate harvesting for both agents and connectivity checks
   all in parallel allows to considerably reduce ICE processing times.

   It is worth pointing out that before being introduced to the IETF,
   trickle ICE had already been included in specifications such as XMPP
   Jingle [XEP-0176] and it has been in use in various implementations
   and deployments.

   In addition to the basics of trickle ICE, this document also
   describes how support for trickle ICE needs to be discovered, how



Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                 [Page 3]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


   regular ICE processing needs to be modified when building and
   updating check lists, and how trickle ICE implementations should
   interoperate with agents that only implement [RFC5245] processing.

   This specification does not define usage of trickle ICE with any
   specific signalling or media description protocol, contrary to
   [RFC5245] which defined a usage for ICE wht SIP and SDP.  Such usages
   would have to be specified in separate documents.


2.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].

   This specification makes use of all terminology defined by the
   protocol for Interactive Connectivity Establishment in [RFC5245].

   Vanilla ICE:  The Interactive Connectivity Establishment protocol as
      defined in [RFC5245].
   Candidate Harvester:  A module used by an ICE agent to obtain local
      candidates.  Candidate harvesters use different mechanisms for
      discovering local candidates.  Some of them would typically make
      use of protocols such as STUN or TURN.  Others may also employ
      techniques that are not referenced within [RFC5245].  UPnP based
      port allocation and XMPP Jingle Relay Nodes [XEP-0278] are among
      the possible examples.
   ICE Description:  A set of parameters necessary for ICE initiation.
      Such parameters include ice-ufrag, ice-pwd and other attributes
      that agents need to exchange in the beginning of an ICE session.
      ICE descriptions are transmitted by signalling.  In the case of
      protocols using Offer/Answer semantics, they are always part of
      the offer and often also part of the answer.


3.  Incompatibility with Standard ICE

   The ICE protocol was designed to be fairly flexible so that it would
   work in and adapt to as many network environments as possible.  It is
   hence important to point out at least some of the reasons why,
   despite its flexibility, the specification in [RFC5245] would not
   support trickle-ICE.

   [RFC5245] describes the conditions required to update check lists and
   timer states while an ICE agent is in the Running state.  These
   conditions are verified upon transaction completion and one of them
   stipulates that:



Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                 [Page 4]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


      If there is not a pair in the valid list for each component of the
      media stream, the state of the check list is set to Failed.
   This could be a problem and cause ICE processing to fail prematurely
   in a number of scenarios.  Consider the following case:
   o  Alice and Bob are both located in different networks with Network
      Address Translation (NAT).  Alice and Bob themselves have
      different address but both networks use the same [RFC1918] block.
   o  Alice sends Bob the candidate 10.0.0.10 which also happens to
      correspond to an existing host on Bob's network.
   o  Bob creates a check list consisting solely of 10.0.0.10 and starts
      checks.
   o  These checks reach the host at 10.0.0.10 in Bob's network, which
      responds with an ICMP "port unreachable" error and per [RFC5245]
      Bob marks the transaction as Failed.
   At this point the check list only contains Failed candidates and the
   valid list is empty.  This causes the media stream and potentially
   all ICE processing to Fail.

   A similar race condition would occur if the initial offer from Alice
   only contains candidates that can be determined as unreachable (per
   [I-D.keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection]) from any of the
   candidates that Bob has gathered.  This would be the case if Bob's
   candidates only contain IPv4 addresses and the first candidate that
   he receives from Alice is an IPv6 one.

   Another potential problem could arise when a non-trickle ICE
   implementation sends an offer to a trickle one.  Consider the
   following case:
   o  Alice's client has a non-trickle ICE implementation
   o  Bob's client has support for trickle ICE.
   o  Alice and Bob are behind NATs with address-dependent filtering
      [RFC4787].
   o  Bob has two STUN servers but one of them is currently unreachable
   After Bob's agent receives Alice's offer it would immediately start
   connectivity checks.  It would also start gathering candidates, which
   would take long because of the unreachable STUN server.  By the time
   Bob's answer is ready and sent to Alice, Bob's connectivity checks
   may well have failed: until Alice gets Bob's answer, she won't be
   able to start connectivity checks and punch holes in her NAT.  The
   NAT would hence be filtering Bob's checks as originating from an
   unknown endpoint.


4.  Detecting Support for Trickle ICE

   In order to avoid interoperability problems such as those described
   in Section 3, it is important that trickle ICE sessions are only
   attempted in cases where both parties support this specification.



Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                 [Page 5]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


   This means that usages of trickle for specific protocols MUST provide
   one of the following:

   o  A way for agents to verify support of trickle ICE prior to
      initiation a session.
   o  A procedure for attempting a trickle ICE session in a way that,
      when received by non-supporting agents, would either allow for a
      smooth fallback to vanilla ICE, or fail in a predictable way so
      that a vanilla ICE session can be retried subsequently.

   The exact mechanisms that would allow for the verifications above are
   outside the scope of this document and should be handled by the
   signalling protocol that is employing ICE.

   Examples of how some signalling protocols already handle service and
   capabilities discovery include:
   o  Service discovery [XEP-0030] and Entity capabilities [XEP-0115]
      for XMPP
   o  Indicating User Agent Capabilities [RFC3840] for SIP

   Usages of trickle ICE SHOULD make use of these mechanisms where they
   exist and can provide reliable indication.

   In some cases, agents may choose to just send an offer that the
   remote party would reject as invalid unless it supports trickling.
   One such example would be an offer with no ICE candidates and an
   invalid default address (e.g. 0.0.0.0).

   Usages of trickle ICE MUST define a way for ICE descriptions to
   indicate support for trickling as well as a clear procedure for
   falling back to vanilla ICE in the absence of such support.


5.  Relationship to the Offer/Answer Model

   The vanilla ICE specification uses the Offer/Answer model for
   exchanging all ICE parameters.  Using just a couple of signalling
   messages is obviously no longer possible with continuous candidate
   provisioning and trying to fit candidate exchanges into consecutive
   offer/answer pairs is clearly not practical.  This specification
   therefore loosens the relationship with the Offer/Answer model by
   splitting trickle ICE signalling into two phases: initial ICE
   Descriptions and subsequent exchange of additional candidates.

   ICE descriptions contain session or media-level parameters that are
   necessary for ICE processing to begin.  Those include attributes such
   as ice-ufrag and ice-pwd.  Due to their nature ICE descriptions are
   exchanged in the beginning of a session and trickle ICE agents MUST



Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                 [Page 6]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


   NOT send any candidates prior to a description.  It is however
   possible for ICE descriptions to be accompanied by a first set of
   candidates.

   When using trickle ICE with Offer/Answer protocols agents MUST
   include an initial ICE description in their Offers.  Answerers in
   this situation MAY send their ICE description at any point after
   receiving that of the offerer but no later than sending their answer,
   which MUST contain an ICE description if the agent did not provide
   one before.

   After sending an ICE description each agent can continue trickling
   candidates regardless of what the state of the Offer/Answer
   negotiation is.


6.  Sending the Initial Description

   An agent starts gathering candidates as soon as it has an indication
   that communication is imminent (e.g. a user interface cue or an
   explicit request to initiate a session).  Contrary to vanilla ICE,
   implementations of trickle ICE do not need to gather candidates in a
   blocking manner, and SHOULD generate and transmit their initial ICE
   description as early as possible.

   In the case of protocols using the Offer/Answer model, agents MUST
   include the initial ICE description in the corresponding offer.

   Trickle ICE agents MAY include any set of candidates in an ICE
   description.  This includes the possibility of generating a
   description with no candidates, or one that contains all the
   candidates that the agent is planning on using in the following
   session.

   For optimal performance, it is RECOMMENDED that an ICE description
   contains host candidates only.  This would allow both agents to start
   gathering server reflexive, relayed and other non-host candidates
   simultaneously, and it would also enable them to begin connectivity
   checks.

   If the privacy implications of revealing host addresses are a
   concern, agents MAY generate an initial ICE description that contains
   no candidates and then only trickle candidates that do not reveal
   host addresses (e.g. relayed candidates).

   Prior to actually sending an initial ICE description, agents MAY
   verify if the remote party supports trickle ICE.  If absence of such
   support is confirmed agents SHOULD fall back to using vanilla ICE or



Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                 [Page 7]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


   abandon the entire session.

   All trickle ICE descriptions MUST indicate support of this
   specification.  The exact syntax of providing this indication is left
   to the usages that define how signalling protocols employ trickle
   ICE.

   Calculating priorities and foundations, as well as determining
   redundancy of candidates work the same way they do with vanilla ICE.


7.  Receiving the Initial Description

   When an agent receives an initial ICE description, in the case of
   protocols using Offer/Answer this description will be part of the
   offer, it will check if it indicates support for trickle ICE as
   explained in Section 4.  If this is not the case, the agent MUST
   process the description according to the [RFC5245] procedures or
   standard [RFC3264] processing in case no ICE support is detected at
   all.

   If, the description does indicate support for trickle ICE, the agent
   will determine its role, start gathering and prioritizing candidates
   and, while doing so it will also respond by sending its own ICE
   description, so that both agents can start forming check lists and
   begin connectivity checks.

   Otherwise the agent would simply fallback to vanilla ICE processing.

7.1.  Responding to an Initial ICE Description

   An agent can respond to an initial ICE description at any point while
   gathering candidates.  Just as with initial ICE descriptions
   (Section 6), the agent does send the description without any
   candidates or with all those it is planning on using.  Again, as with
   initial descriptions it is RECOMMENDED that responses to initial ICE
   descriptions contain host candidates so that the remote party can
   also start forming checklists and performing connectivity checks.

   The answer MUST indicate support for trickle ICE as described by
   usage specifications.

   For protocols using Offer/Answer semantics the response to the
   initial ICE description would either be transmitted prior to the
   [RFC3264] answer or as a part of it.






Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                 [Page 8]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


7.2.  Forming check lists and beginning connectivity checks

   After exchanging descriptions, and as soon as they have gathered any
   candidates, agents will begin forming candidate pairs, computing
   their priorities and creating check lists according to the vanilla
   ICE procedures described in [RFC5245].  Obviously in order for
   candidate pairing to be possible, it would be necessary that both
   descriptions contained candidates.  If this was not the case agents
   will still create the check lists (so that their Active/Frozen state
   could be monitored and updated) but they will only populate them once
   they have learned any local and remote candidates.

   Initially, all check lists will have their Active/Frozen state set to
   Frozen.

   Trickle ICE agents will then also attempt to unfreeze the check list
   for the first media stream (i.e. the first media stream that was
   reported to the ICE implementation from the using application).  If
   this checklist is still empty however, agents will continue examining
   media streams in the order they were reported and will unfreeze the
   first non-empty checklist.

   Respecting the order in which lists have been reported to an ICE
   implementation, or in other words, the order in which streams had
   been described by the signalling protocol (e.g.  SDP), is helpful so
   that checks for the same media stream is more likely to be performed
   simultaneously by both agents.


8.  Receiving a Response to the Initial ICE Description

   When receiving an answer, agents will follow vanilla ICE procedures
   to determine their role and they would then form check lists and
   begin connectivity checks as described in Section 7.2.


9.  Performing Connectivity Checks

   For the most part, trickle ICE agents perform connectivity checks
   following vanilla ICE procedures.  Of course, the asynchronous nature
   of candidate harvesting in trickle ICE would impose a number of
   changes:

9.1.  Check List and Timer State Updates

   The vanilla ICE specification requires that agents update check lists
   and timer states upon completing a connectivity check transaction.
   During such an update vanilla ICE agents would set the state of a



Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                 [Page 9]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


   check list to Failed if the following two conditions are satisfied:
   o  all of the pairs in the check list are either in the Failed or
      Succeeded state;
   o  if at least one of the components of the media stream has no pairs
      in its valid list.

   With trickle ICE, the above situation would often occur when
   candidate harvesting and trickling are still in progress and it is
   perfectly possible that future checks will succeed.  For this reason
   trickle ICE agents add the following conditions to the above list:

   o  all candidate harvesters have completed and the agent is not
      expecting to learn any new candidates;
   o  the remote agent has sent an end-of-candidates message for that
      check list as described in Section 10.1.

   Vanilla ICE requires that agents then update all other check lists,
   placing one pair in each of them into the Waiting state, effectively
   unfreezing the check list.  Given that with trickle ICE, other check
   lists may still be empty at that point, a trickle ICE agent SHOULD
   also maintain an explicit Active/Frozen state for every check list,
   rather than deducing it from the state of the pairs it contains.
   This state should be set to Active when unfreezing the first pair in
   a list or when that couldn't happen because a list was empty.


10.  Learning and Sending Additional Local Candidates

   After an ICE description has been sent or received, agents will most
   likely continue discovering new local candidates as STUN, TURN and
   other non-host candidate harvesting mechanisms begin to yield
   results.  Whenever such a new candidate is learned agents will
   compute its priority, type, foundation and component id according to
   normal vanilla ICE procedures.

   The new candidate is then checked for redundancy against the existing
   list of local candidates.  If its transport address and base match
   those of an existing candidate, it will be considered redundant and
   will be ignored.  This would often happen for server reflexive
   candidates that match the host addresses they were obtained from
   (e.g. when the latter are public IPv4 addresses).  Contrary to
   vanilla ICE, trickle ICE agents will consider the new candidate
   redundant regardless of its priority.  [TODO: is this OK? if not we
   need to check if the existing candidate was already used in conn
   checks, cancel them, and then restart them with the new candidate ...
   and in this specific case there's probably no point to do that].

   Then, if no remote candidates are currently known for this same



Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                [Page 10]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


   stream, the new candidate will simply be added to the list of local
   candidates.

   Otherwise, if the agent has already learned of one or more remote
   candidates for this stream and component, it will begin pairing the
   new local candidates with them and adding the pairs to the existing
   check lists according to their priority.  Forming candidate pairs
   will work the way it is described by the vanilla ICE specification.
   Actually adding the new pair to a check list however, will happen
   according to the rules described below.

   If the new pair's local candidate is server reflexive, the server
   reflexive candidate MUST be replaced by its base before adding the
   pair to the list.  Once this is done, the agent examines the check
   list looking for another pair that would be redundant with the new
   one.  If such a pair exists and its state is:

   Succeeded:   the newly formed pair is ignored.
   Frozen or Waiting:   the agent chooses the pair with the higher
      priority local candidate, places it in the state that the old pair
      was in (i.e.  Frozen or Waiting) and removes the other one as
      redundant.
   Failed:   the agent chooses the pair with the higher priority local
      candidate, places it in the Waiting state and removes the other
      one as redundant.
   In-Progress:   The agent cancels the in-progress transaction (where
      cancellation happens as explained in Section 7.2.1.4 of
      [RFC5245]), then it chooses the pair with the higher priority
      local candidate, places it in the Waiting state and removes the
      other one as redundant.

   For all other pairs, including those with a server reflexive local
   candidate that were not found to be redundant:
   o  if this check list is Frozen then the new pair will also be
      assigned a Frozen state.
   o  else if the check list is Active and it is either empty or
      contains only candidates in the Succeeded and Failed states, then
      the new pair's state is set to Waiting.
   o  else if the check list is non-empty and Active, then the new pair
      state will be set to
      Frozen:   if there is at least one pair in the list whose
         foundation matches the one in the new pair and whose state is
         neither Succeeded nor Failed (eventually the new pair will get
         unfrozen after the the on-going check for the existing pair
         concludes);






Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                [Page 11]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


      Waiting:   if the list contains no pairs with the same foundation
         as the new one, or, in case such pairs exist, they are all in
         either the Succeeded or Failed states.

10.1.  Announcing End of Candidates

   Once all candidate harvesters for a specific media stream complete,
   or expire, the agent MUST generate an "end-of-candidates" event for
   that stream and send it to the remote agent via the signalling
   channel.  This would allow the remote agent to begin updating check
   list states and, in case valid pairs do not exist for every component
   in every media stream, determine that ICE processing has failed.

   An agent MAY also choose to generate an "end-of-candidates" event
   before candidate harvesting has actually completed, if the agent
   determines that harvesting has continued for more than an acceptable
   period of time.

   Once the agent sends the end-of-candidates event, it SHOULD update
   the state of the corresponding check list as explained in section
   Section 9.1

   [TODO: should we also have an end-of-candidates for the entire
   harvesting process (as opposed to that of a single stream)]


11.  Receiving Additional Remote Candidates

   At any point of ICE processing, a trickle ICE agent may receive new
   candidates from the remote agent.  When this happens and no local
   candidates are currently known for this same stream, the new remote
   candidates are simply added to the list of remote candidates.

   Otherwise, the new candidates are used for forming candidate pairs
   with the pool of local candidates.

   Once the remote agent has completed candidate harvesting, it will
   send an "end-of-candidates" event.  Upon receiving such an event, the
   local agent MUST update check list states as per Section 9.1.  This
   may lead to some check lists being marked as Failed.


12.  Concluding ICE Processing with Trickle ICE

   Trickle ICE processing SHOULD be concluded as explained in Section 8
   of [RFC5245].





Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                [Page 12]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


13.  Interaction with non-Trickle ICE implementations

   Trickle ICE implementations MUST behave as non-trickle and follow
   [RFC5245] unless they can confirm that the remote party supports this
   specification.  [TODO: anything else?]


14.  Example Flow

   A typical successful trickle ICE exchange with an Offer/Answer
   protocol would look this way:


           Alice                                            Bob
             |            Offer+ICE Description              |
             |---------------------------------------------->|
             |            Additional Candidates              |
             |---------------------------------------------->|
             |                                               |
             |            Answer+ICE Description             |
             |<----------------------------------------------|
             |            Additional Candidates              |
             |<----------------------------------------------|
             |                                               |
             | Additional Candidates and Connectivity Checks |
             |<--------------------------------------------->|
             |                                               |
             |<=============== MEDIA FLOWS =================>|



                             Figure 1: Example


15.  Security Considerations

   [TODO]


16.  Acknowledgements

   The authors would like to thank Christer Holmberg and Martin Thomson
   for their reviews and suggestions on improving this document.


17.  References





Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                [Page 13]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


17.1.  Normative References

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC5245]  Rosenberg, J., "Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE): A Protocol for Network Address Translator (NAT)
              Traversal for Offer/Answer Protocols", RFC 5245,
              April 2010.

17.2.  Informative References

   [I-D.keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection]
              Keranen, A. and J. Arkko, "Update on Candidate Address
              Selection for Interactive Connectivity Establishment
              (ICE)", draft-keranen-mmusic-ice-address-selection-01
              (work in progress), July 2012.

   [RFC1918]  Rekhter, Y., Moskowitz, R., Karrenberg, D., Groot, G., and
              E. Lear, "Address Allocation for Private Internets",
              BCP 5, RFC 1918, February 1996.

   [RFC3264]  Rosenberg, J. and H. Schulzrinne, "An Offer/Answer Model
              with Session Description Protocol (SDP)", RFC 3264,
              June 2002.

   [RFC3840]  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., and P. Kyzivat,
              "Indicating User Agent Capabilities in the Session
              Initiation Protocol (SIP)", RFC 3840, August 2004.

   [RFC4787]  Audet, F. and C. Jennings, "Network Address Translation
              (NAT) Behavioral Requirements for Unicast UDP", BCP 127,
              RFC 4787, January 2007.

   [RFC5389]  Rosenberg, J., Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and D. Wing,
              "Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5389,
              October 2008.

   [RFC5766]  Mahy, R., Matthews, P., and J. Rosenberg, "Traversal Using
              Relays around NAT (TURN): Relay Extensions to Session
              Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN)", RFC 5766, April 2010.

   [XEP-0030]
              Hildebrand, J., Millard, P., Eatmon, R., and P. Saint-
              Andre, "XEP-0030: Service Discovery", XEP XEP-0030,
              June 2008.

   [XEP-0115]



Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                [Page 14]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


              Hildebrand, J., Saint-Andre, P., Troncon, R., and J.
              Konieczny, "XEP-0115: Entity Capabilities", XEP XEP-0115,
              February 2008.

   [XEP-0176]
              Beda, J., Ludwig, S., Saint-Andre, P., Hildebrand, J.,
              Egan, S., and R. McQueen, "XEP-0176: Jingle ICE-UDP
              Transport Method", XEP XEP-0176, June 2009.

   [XEP-0278]
              Camargo, T., "XEP-0278: Jingle Relay Nodes", XEP XEP-0278,
              June 2011.


Appendix A.  Open issues

   At the time of writing of this document the authors have no clear
   view on how and if the following list of issues should be address
   here:
   1.  Do we need a "stop sending me candidates" message.  What would be
       the use case for that.
   2.  Is there anything specific we need to say about ICE lite?


Appendix B.  Changes From Earlier Versions

   Note to the RFC-Editor: please remove this section prior to
   publication as an RFC.

B.1.  Changes From Individual Submission Draft -00

   o  Relaxed requirements about verifying support following a
      discussion on MMUSIC.
   o  Introduced ICE descriptions in order to remove ambiguous use of
      3264 language and inappropriate references to offers and answers.
   o  Removed inappropriate assumption of adoption by RTCWEB pointed out
      by Martin Thomson.














Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                [Page 15]


Internet-Draft                 Trickle ICE                  October 2012


Authors' Addresses

   Eric Rescorla
   RTFM, Inc.
   2064 Edgewood Drive
   Palo Alto, CA  94303
   USA

   Phone: +1 650 678 2350
   Email: ekr@rtfm.com


   Justin Uberti
   Google
   747 6th St S
   Kirkland, WA  98033
   USA

   Phone: +1 857 288 8888
   Email: justin@uberti.name


   Emil Ivov
   Jitsi
   Strasbourg  67000
   France

   Phone: +33 6 72 81 15 55
   Email: emcho@jitsi.org






















Rescorla, et al.         Expires April 26, 2013                [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129d, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/