Re: [Ice] Trickle ICE review

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

Agreed. The authors will submit a new version soon that addresses
Taylor's feedback.

On 3/31/17 4:03 PM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
> Ah, thanks for explaining this.  I like your idea of making the real
> intention explicit (pair and trickle in the same order).  I think that's
> much more clear and precise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 8:45 PM Taylor Brandstetter <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>         In the phrase " A Trickle ICE agent MUST NOT pair a local
>         candidate until it has been trickled to the remote agent.", what
>         does "has been trickled" mean?
> 
> 
>     Sorry I'm late at responding to this, but I assumed the main
>     intention here was that candidates are paired in the same order that
>     they're trickled, because that was necessary for the unfreezing
>     logic to work. For example: suppose an endpoint already has remote
>     candidates, and then gathers RTP and RTCP candidates. It pairs them
>     in the order "RTCP, RTP" (maybe the STUN response for the RTCP
>     candidate came back first), resulting in an RTCP pair being unfrozen
>     first, but they're trickled in the order "RTP, RTCP" (as a result of
>     the restrictions of section 16), resulting in the remote endpoint
>     unfreezing the RTP pair first.
> 
>     Before, this would have resulted in things failing (as I recall).
>     But this isn't as much of a problem now; I'm looking at the current
>     section 8.1.1, and it would result in the local endpoint just
>     unfreezing /both/ pairs, so things would be able to proceed.
> 
>     But it still could result in extra pairs being unfrozen; is that
>     acceptable? If not, I'd suggest moving this note to section 16, and
>     making it more clear what the intention is. For example: "Candidates
>     MUST be paired, following the procedures in section 8.1.1, in the
>     same order that they're trickled."
> 
>     An important related question: There used to be a line that said
>     "When trickle updates are sent, each candidate MUST be delivered to
>     the receiving Trickle ICE implementation ... in the same order that
>     they were sent." But the "in the same order that they were sent"
>     part has been removed. Do we no longer require that the signaling
>     mechanism preserves ordering? If so, Section 16 doesn't make sense
>     any more; it requires a specific order of candidate trickling, but
>     that can't be guaranteed if the signaling mechanism doesn't preserve
>     ordering. All my ramblings above would be moot as well.
> 
>     On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Christer Holmberg
>     <[e-mail]
>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>         Hi,
> 
>         Perhaps we could say something like "re-start or once all
>         candidates have been released", or something like that... We
>         seem to agree, so it's just about wording :)
> 
>         Regards,
> 
>         Christer
> 
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Peter Saint-Andre [mailto:[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>]
>         Sent: 30 March 2017 20:42
>         To: Peter Thatcher <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Christer Holmberg
>         <[e-mail]
>         <mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ari Keränen
>         <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>
>         Cc: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         Subject: Re: [Ice] Trickle ICE review
> 
>         On 3/30/17 9:45 AM, Peter Thatcher wrote:
>         > Ah, I see what you mean now.
>         >
>         > In that case, could we just define "ICE session" as the
>         something like
>         > "stuff until the next ICE restart or the termination of all ICE
>         > activity by this agent"?
> 
>         Right, there's no "ICE session termination" message, so that'll
>         have to do.
> 
>         Peter
> 
>         _______________________________________________
>         Ice mailing list
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ice
>