Subject: [Ice] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: "Suresh Krishnan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 22:18:58 -0700

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness-04: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 4

I am trying to see if there is any background for the following
statement

"It is worth noting that the timing recommendations in [RFC6555] are not
optimal for ICE usage."

Why is it not optimal? Do you want smaller or larger timings? Some
explanations here would be good. Additionally, it might be worthwhile for
this document to provide alternate timing recommendations that *are*
optimal.

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

* Agree with Alissa's DISCUSS point. I ran into the same circular
reference
* Agree with Mirja's comment about fairness being the wrong term to use