Re: [Ice] Trickle ICE review

[Ari Keränen <[e-mail]>]

> On 26 Mar 2017, at 13:48, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 3/25/17 9:09 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
[...]
>> - The name "ICE negotiation session" with definition of "A virtual
>> session ..." is confusing.   I understand that we need a word for
>> "period between restarts" and "period across restarts".  But what does
>> "virtual" mean in this context?  And what does "negotiation" mean in
>> "ICE negotiation session"?  Here's a possible suggestion: call it
>> "single-exchange session".   A single-exchange session is the period
>> from a single exchange of ICE description until the next exchange.  A
>> "normal" ICE session is basically a multi-exchange session.
> 
> This might be clearer:
> 
>   ICE Session:  All of the ICE-related interactions between ICE agents
>      up until an ICE restart (if any).
> 
> However, that definition probably belongs in 5245bis. The term as used
> in the Trickle specification is not limited to interactions between
> Trickle ICE agents.

Agree. Let's add this to ICE-bis. 

I noticed that ICE-bis actually uses this term already, but didn't define it in terminology. Let's fix that.

[...]
>> - "Either agent MAY generate a subsequent ICE description at any time
>> allowed by RFC3264".  This causes ICE to be dependent on SDP, which we
>> were trying to avoid.  Was this just one place where we missed removing
>> a dependency on SDP?  I would suggest removing it or replacing it with
>> the phrase "Either agent MAY generate subsequent ICE descriptions at any
>> time", unless there is a clear time when an ICE agent cannot (and I
>> can't think of one). 
> 
> This seems to be a stray mention of RFC 3264 that was not removed in
> earlier editing. Perhaps "Either agent MAY generate a subsequent ICE
> description at any time allowed by the signaling protocol in use" (we
> don't want to override any other protocol's rules here).

Sounds good to me.


Thanks,
Ari (chair hat off)