Re: [Ice] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ice-trickle-19.txt

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi.

If the procedures in section 7 only happens when the check lists are initially created, maybe that needs to be more explicit.

Also, regarding the pruning text, if you remove the text about peer reflexive I guess you could simply reference 5245bis for the pruning procedure - no need to copy/paste the procedure text.

Regards,

Christer

Sent from my iPhone

On 5 Apr 2018, at 23.08, Peter Saint-Andre <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

On 4/5/18 12:58 PM, Christer Holmberg wrote:
Hi,

Still a few questions:

Thanks for the continued review.

The text in section 7.1 says:

  "With regard to pruning of duplicate candidate pairs, a Trickle ICE
  agent SHOULD follow a policy of keeping the higher priority candidate
  unless it is peer reflexive."

Wasn't there a question on the "unless it is peer reflexive" part?

Ah, I thought I had removed that. It was in two places, and I missed
this one.

---

The text in section 8.1 says:

     "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
      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)."

I realized that Section 5.1.3 of 5245bis does not talk about eliminating of pairs - it only talks about eliminating of redundant candidates. So, shouldn't the eliminating of pairs be covered in section 7.1?

IMHO §8.1 (of draft-ietf-ice-trickle) is the right place for this text,
because it's about how to handle new candidates/pairs. But we need to
clear up the distinction between candidates and pairs in §8 and §8.1.
I'll look at this more closely and post to the list again.

Peter