Subject: [Ice] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ice-trickle-19.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2018 10:29:00 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Interactive Connectivity Establishment WG of the IETF.

        Title           : Trickle ICE: Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Protocol
        Authors         : Emil Ivov
                          Eric Rescorla
                          Justin Uberti
                          Peter Saint-Andre
	Filename        : draft-ietf-ice-trickle-19.txt
	Pages           : 32
	Date            : 2018-04-05

Abstract:
   This document describes "Trickle ICE", an extension to the
   Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) protocol that enables
   ICE agents to begin connectivity checks while they are still
   gathering candidates, by incrementally "trickling" candidates over
   time.  This method can considerably accelerate the process of
   establishing a communication session.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-trickle/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ice-trickle-19
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ice-trickle-19

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ice-trickle-19

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 11:31:37 -0600

This version addresses IESG feedback.

On 4/5/18 11:29 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Ice mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 18:58:44 +0000

Hi,

Still a few questions:

The text in section 7.1 says:

   "With regard to pruning of duplicate candidate pairs, a Trickle ICE
   agent SHOULD follow a policy of keeping the higher priority candidate
   unless it is peer reflexive."

Wasn't there a question on the "unless it is peer reflexive" part?

---

The text in section 8.1 says:

      "2.  The agent eliminates redundant pairs by following the rules in
       Section 5.1.3 of [rfc5245bis], but only if the old pair has a
       state of Waiting or Frozen (thus avoiding removal of pairs for
       which connectivity checks are in flight or for which connectivity
       checks have already yielded a definitive result)."

I realized that Section 5.1.3 of 5245bis does not talk about eliminating of pairs - it only talks about eliminating of redundant candidates. So, shouldn't the eliminating of pairs be covered in section 7.1?

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Ice [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Peter Saint-Andre
Sent: 05 April 2018 19:32
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Ice] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ice-trickle-19.txt

On 4/5/18 11:29 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2018 14:08:38 -0600

> Still a few questions:

Thanks for the continued review.

> Wasn't there a question on the "unless it is peer reflexive" part?

Ah, I thought I had removed that. It was in two places, and I missed
this one.

> I realized that Section 5.1.3 of 5245bis does not talk about eliminating of pairs - it only talks about eliminating of redundant candidates. So, shouldn't the eliminating of pairs be covered in sec…

IMHO §8.1 (of draft-ietf-ice-trickle) is the right place for this text,
because it's about how to handle new candidates/pairs. But we need to
clear up the distinction between candidates and pairs in §8 and §8.1.
I'll look at this more closely and post to the list again.

Peter

---

From: Christer Holmberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2018 03:17:37 +0000

Hi.

If the procedures in section 7 only happens when the check lists are initially created, maybe that needs to be more explicit.

Also, regarding the pruning text, if you remove the text about peer reflexive I guess you could simply reference 5245bis for the pruning procedure - no need to copy/paste the procedure text.

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Apr 2018, at 23.08, Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Still a few questions:

---

Peter