Subject: [Ice] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ice-trickle-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2018 03:21:40 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ice-trickle-18: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-trickle/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the well written doc! On minor comment on the use of normative
language:

Section 8: "Also, candidate trickling needs to be correlated to a specific ICE
   session, so that if there is an ICE restart, any delayed updates for
   a previous session can be recognized as such and ignored by the
   receiving party. "
Maybe use normative language here: "Also, candidate trickling MUST be
correlated to a specific ICE
   session, so that if there is an ICE restart, any delayed updates for
   a previous session can be recognized as such and ignored by the
   receiving party. "
I assume this is not using normative language because there is a normative
requirement in sec 14. However, not using normative language in both cases
seems rather confusing to me. Alternatively , I would suggest to add a forward
reference.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 10:00:06 -0600

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-trickle/

Good catch. I suggest:

   Also, the using protocol MUST ensure that each trickled candidate is
   associated with a specific ICE session, so that if there is an ICE
   restart any delayed updates for a previous session can be recognized
   as such and ignored by the receiving party (see Section 10).

I also suggest that we move the following sentence from Section 8.2
("Announcing End of Candidates") to Section 10 ("Receiving an
End-Of-Candidates Indication") because it's out of place where it is now:

   After an agent has received an
   end-of-candidates indication, it MUST also ignore any newly received
   candidates for that data stream or data session.

Peter