Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE review

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:15:56 -0600

Hi Pal,

Thanks for the detailed review. I recently volunteered to help Emil, 
Eric, and Justin finish this spec. Unfortunately your review is large so 
I won't have time to address all of the issues you've raised today 
before the submission deadline. However, see some comments inline.

On 9/22/15 3:48 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is my review of the Trickle ICE draft.
>
> Some technical issues/questions:
>
> - Some confusion regarding the checklist state. This is also somewhat
> confusing in the vanilla spec. A checklist has three defined states:
> Running, Failed and Succeeded. But it can also implicitly be described
> as frozen or waiting dependent on the state of the candidate_pairs in
> the list. I think Trickle ICE would benefit if we added another state:
> Waiting_for_candidates.
> Action: Discuss Checklist sates in ICEbis and addition states in Trickle
> ICE during next IETF meeting?

Yes, this would be a good topic to discuss then. I will also start a 
separate thread on the ICE WG list on this point.

> - I think Trickle ICE would benefit a lot from the outcome of
> continious-nomination and the passive-agressive proposals. At least if
> we are aiming for Trickle ICE to be used as an address mobility
> technique as well. Depends how quick we want trickle ICE out of the
> door. This can easily be fixed by another draft describing Trickle ICE
> mobility later

As I understand it, the trickle ICE spec was originally intended to 
document existing usage.

I would like to hear from the chairs of the ICE WG about what they 
envision for scope and timeline of this I-D. Again, I can start a thread 
about that on the ICE WG list.

> - Separate SDP from the documents as done with ICEbis?

I think that would be helpful - I know I've found it a bit confusing to 
read because of how SDP seems to be sort-of but not-quite normative.

I'll reply to the rest of your message separately because it's quite 
thorough. :-)

Peter