Re: [Ice] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-ice-trickle-18: (with COMMENT)

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

Right, “existing pair” would be better.

Sent from mobile, might be terse 

> On Apr 4, 2018, at 6:17 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:57:59AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> 
>> Specifically, I suggest the following revised text for Section 8.1:
>> 
>> ###
>> 
>> 8.1.  Pairing Newly Learned Candidates and Updating Check Lists
>> 
>>   Forming candidate pairs works as described in the ICE specification
>>   [rfc5245bis].  However, adding the new pair to a check list happens
>>   according to the following rules:
>> 
>>   1.  If the new pair's local candidate is server reflexive, the agent
>>       MUST replace the candidate with its base before completing the
>>       redundancy check in step 2.
>> 
>>   2.  The agent eliminates redundant pairs by following the rules in
>>       Section 5.1.3 of [rfc5245bis], but only if the old pair has a
> 
> I wonder if "old" is ambiguous here.
> 
> -Benjamin
> 
>>       state of Waiting or Frozen (thus avoiding removal of pairs for
>>       which connectivity checks are in flight or for which connectivity
>>       checks have already yielded a definitive result).
>> 
>>   3.  If after the foregoing redundancy test the check list where the
>>       pair is to be added already contains the maximum number of
>>       candidate pairs (100 by default as per [rfc5245bis]), the agent
>>       SHOULD discard any pairs in the Failed state to make room for the
>>       new pair.  If there are no such pairs, the agent SHOULD discard
>>       the new pair.
>> 
>>   4.  Otherwise, add the new pair to the check list.
>> 
>> ###
>> 
>> Peter
>>