Subject: [Ice] Review of trickle ICE

From: Peter Thatcher <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 07:30:04 -0700

I reviewed the latest draft of ICE (in github) and have the following
comments, many of them similar to Taylor's recent comments:

- There are lots of references to offers and answers.  5245bis no longer
uses that terminology and I think trickle ICE should be updated to reflect
the new terminology.

- Also, there are lots of references still to SDP that I think we can get
rid of.

- The handling of duplicate candidates seems to still be "first one wins",
and we've decided to change that to "highest priority wins, except for
peer-reflexive" or something like that.  Either way, the doc needs to be
updated to match the decision.

- Why is session-level end-of-candidates restricted to offers/answers.
Better yet, if you don't talk about offers/answers at all, this should just
go away.

- It says ICE "will conclude" after nomination, but it should probably say
"may conclude".

- It seems like ICE restarts are basically re-defined.  But why do that?
Why not just say that ICE restarts work just like 5245bis, except that you
can assume trickle ICE is supporte if it was previously?   Or, better yet,
why not just leave that to signaling to decide?

- "ICE harvester" is strange term.  "Gatherer" might be a better one.