Enable acceptAggressiveNomination by default

[Sean-Der]

Always accept Aggressive Nominations by remote agent

Relates to 18f7a21

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #446 (bd602c4) into master (18f7a21) will increase coverage by 0.14%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #446      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.85%   79.00%   +0.14%     
==========================================
  Files          34       34              
  Lines        3925     3924       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits         3095     3100       +5     
+ Misses        639      636       -3     
+ Partials      191      188       -3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
go	79.00% <100.00%> (+0.14%)	⬆️
wasm	24.89% <0.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
agent.go	82.05% <ø> (+0.23%)	⬆️
selection.go	84.11% <100.00%> (-0.08%)	⬇️
gather.go	67.45% <0.00%> (-0.40%)	⬇️
candidate_base.go	87.87% <0.00%> (+1.81%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 18f7a21...bd602c4. Read the comment docs.

[Sean-Der]

@jech Anyone have concerns/doubts about this?

[jech]

I haven't tested yet, but it looks correct to me. I see nothing in RFC 5245 that makes aggressive nomination optional, so my understanding is that we must expect the peer to do aggressive nomination if it so desires. If my understanding is correct, we must accept aggressive nomination, no ifs, no buts.

[jech]

I've done some testing with a multihomed client (Ethernet+WiFi), and it doesn't seem to break anything (tested on Brave and Firefox). It doesn't seem to fix #305, though.