Subject: [Ice] Spencer Dawkins' Yes on draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: (with COMMENT)

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2016 06:54:38 -0700

Spencer Dawkins has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: Yes

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-dualstack-fairness/

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

Thanks for doing this work.

The document thinks it's going for Best Current Practice, but the
shepherd write-up and datatracker think it's going for Informational. It
would be good for that to match ...

I'm a little confused by 

   These recommendations are backward compatible with a standard ICE
   implementation.  The resulting local and remote checklist will still
   be synchronized.  The introduced fairness might be better, but not
   worse than what exists today
   
Is the point that the introduced fairness 
 - might be better, or 
 - might be the same as, but
 - won't be worse?
 
If so, that wasn't clear to me on first (or second) reading.

(Nit: missing period at the end of "what exists today")