Re: [Ice] ICE Generation clarification questions

[Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]>]

Hi Thomas, please check the diff to see if I've addressed your concerns:

https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-ice-trickle-07.txt

Thanks!

Peter

On 2/27/17 11:43 PM, Thomas Stach wrote:
> +1
> 
> 
> On 2017-02-27 23:38, Taylor Brandstetter wrote:
>> Noting the connection sounds good.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:57 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Exactly. Would it help to describe it that way or at least note the
>>     connection?
>>
>>     On 2/27/17 2:55 PM, Taylor Brandstetter wrote:
>>     > Another way of looking at it is that a given generation is
>>     identified by
>>     > a local/remote ufrag pair, which will change on ICE restart.
>>     >
>>     > On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 1:53 PM, Peter Saint-Andre
>>     <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     > <mailto:[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     >     On 2/27/17 2:13 AM, Thomas Stach wrote:
>>     >     > Hi,
>>     >     >
>>     >     > I'm a bit confused about the definition of an ICE
>>     Generation and how it
>>     >     > is used in Section 14
>>     >
>>     >     To be clear for folks on the list, this is in reference to
>>     the trickle
>>     >     draft.
>>     >
>>     >     >    Generation:  The complete set of candidates sent within
>>     an ICE
>>     >     >       negotiation session.
>>     >     >
>>     >     >
>>     >     >
>>     >     > Section 14 and the definition of Half/Full Trickle then
>>     uses terms like
>>     >     > "first generation"
>>     >     > "complete generation",
>>     >
>>     >     For half trickle purposes, I think it would be best to use
>>     the phrase
>>     >     "full generation" or even "complete set of candidates". That
>>     is: under
>>     >     half trickle, in the initial ICE description the initiator
>>     sends all the
>>     >     candidates it might possibly send.
>>     >
>>     >     > "the responder can respond with an incomplete generation
>>     of candidates",
>>     >     >
>>     >     > "full generation"
>>     >     >
>>     >     > This seems to imply that the generation is not necessarily
>>     the complete
>>     >     > set of candidates,
>>     >
>>     >     The generation is as defined above: the complete set of
>>     candidates sent
>>     >     within an ICE negotiation session. It would be better here
>>     to use the
>>     >     phrase "incomplete set of candidates".
>>     >
>>     >     > but could grow during aICE Negotiation Session until
>>     end-of-candidates
>>     >     > is signalled.
>>     >     > So the generation rather seems to be the extensible set of
>>     currently
>>     >     > known/exchanged candidates.
>>     >
>>     >     No, the generation is everything sent before an ICE restart
>>     (if any). In
>>     >     trickle the set can grow over time, whereas in regular ICE
>>     it can't.
>>     >
>>     >     > It is also not clear to me if the candidates sent by the
>>     ICE initiator
>>     >     > and the ICE responder
>>     >     > belong to  different generations or if the generation is
>>     the union of
>>     >     > both candidate sets.
>>     >
>>     >     It is the union.
>>     >
>>     >     Peter
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >     _______________________________________________
>>     >     Ice mailing list
>>     >     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> <mailto:[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>>     >     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>
>>     >     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>>
>>     >
>>     >
>>
>>
>