IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ice] Status of draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness

Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 14 December 2016 08:06 UTC

Return-Path: <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ice@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47BFE129CA3; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:06:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ouhxM_D7Z188; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yb0-x233.google.com (mail-yb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79BDF129417; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:06:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yb0-x233.google.com with SMTP id v132so9645599yba.0; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:06:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=1aWHZQT6HjWBSV+wMXGcyXA7RpqHSSIAxOOzzp91+bY=; b=tNXEojxJ4+T8kiCNFyUnYGIZgoxEMpWiLO0LGEc6I8nT6Zvjxn1h4H+lT/Yu4J9KXj ZUXq+LU5tQjrIP5E1F9z+oBWH/Q2qV4yPdIHjr7A5A4Tld83F0o/GA+3CHGjz6GZF01G QaGe97gsP1PGGckOD+I+EZ8c9DVMhOpCcMWTgOiCO+TST0bedJVpqBAmCkJ0ewAuJPYT e5rAWVAJ/R6jmv2CKrV5BGXPOY4WfaMGBL8KV/wG4g3rtVpGVuuNfxmKQjQj0WJPsQ3q 2D7xL39KZGxcq4ve9elNQJlk0kP+Z9joD5wl6Z3vjqTTcT3ossplr2i0H2Ide9ClDx/N wRqw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1aWHZQT6HjWBSV+wMXGcyXA7RpqHSSIAxOOzzp91+bY=; b=dWS2chQPt9YIHWw4hzv/u93gAoXxm0BbAu/n7yFN6jQbuRr65m0f9MSfgHEfaOWfHf qojKuItGGifl9dZTAyRImuMRAZ3ZhtAd/MARATvJLO7xpXcucY48bjO2a6T3QNQYjZ/A 53qVR8nts9p0C6Ie2EJhKBLdAeq+Z17ctvT6ao8APMspAyttOW7XLhJrjuMmRcujwRTj TXYYLZO2r7NzTz0XIUMO3RxwxX1AvVhioyfaQsqlOw+4f5lItQ7YXDyLPnceBdoWn63G u6Ke61C57g98j01f9FOWZF5ktRvPxKYjPUymnCwq/5jmFnqdqGJYGDO//JVQdbYR63Ee LX8Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01oj4a1nVo/Xo8jy/8/W9oPRAt0VSFdBf/IAahQIsrMfqLP2bCkbseXLZVwLn1Kx96P5ub7CG6JAalFwg==
X-Received: by 10.13.253.6 with SMTP id n6mr104659082ywf.26.1481702794713; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:06:34 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.176.5 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:06:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.37.176.5 with HTTP; Wed, 14 Dec 2016 00:06:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <05272C49-3FAB-4DFD-BC44-932C197572A9@nostrum.com>
References: <A451E086-C695-448A-8B13-1CC6D4F9BEE0@nostrum.com> <5091bb84-9a50-8f71-2715-1208fdf796f2@cs.tcd.ie> <CAKKJt-cDRXJ=JWGVY1a21dEohAEgxGJD6RJr8AnAaVGSGxVmdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-cWPWaehD3hcWSAXAZ1AzSX1HAx+Pk_yef+zj13Wjo6sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-chYVMA7Q8K3+OBxgwW+jEGW=F2ctapktT3jC3P6GRRoA@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-fhUgkwXHO7E57CdxiLqn_YQfv0NE7QTnGNAz=kpYNT_A@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-dsS9-+ontE78ddGrBWZ0wGFe+Ln59ioxh7hkXD_fT05g@mail.gmail.com> <CAKKJt-d7s7JVrWHRkH5WOPnR9073+DTjR91UnwiqzCOJbXe3AQ@mail.gmail.com> <05272C49-3FAB-4DFD-BC44-932C197572A9@nostrum.com>
From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 02:06:34 -0600
Message-ID: <CAKKJt-dkX=S3CHR2FYAi7jGyDNdcD5TpA=TxAX8CsMyy4dKc9w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c06b164bde0dd054399d06a"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/3Z8aV2-GOCH619mqezCihdhjt6k>
Cc: ice@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness.shepherd@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ice] Status of draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness
X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interactive Connectivity Establishment \(ICE\)" <ice.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ice/>
List-Post: <mailto:ice@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice>, <mailto:ice-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2016 08:06:37 -0000

Hi, Ben,

On Dec 14, 2016 12:21 PM, "Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:

On 13 Dec 2016, at 21:16, Spencer Dawkins at IETF wrote:

[...]

&gt; Does anyone object to that course?
>>
>
>
>
>> I don't object. OTOH, given the time of year and the fact
>>
> that there's little difference in 1 vs 2 weeks now, I'd
> say that a shorter LC has no real benefit right now so is
> maybe not worth it.
>
>
>
>
> What Stephen said.
>
>
>
>
> I've certainly done second last calls as "does anyone object, with a week
> timeout", but the question is whether shortening the timeout to a week in
> this case helps with anything.
>
>
>
The only advantage I see is finishing the LC before the holidays. Or at
least before _my_ holidays, which makes it more likely I can act quickly on
completion.

A 2 week last call would complete the week between Christmas and New Years,
which would probably offer no more practical review time than a 1 week LC.
(If I were to launch a _normal_ LC right now, I would probably give it 3
weeks due to holidays.


That all works for me. It doesn't sound likely that an additional week of
delay helps much at all.

Spencer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email