Re: [Ice] Peter's review of ICEbis - Why do we model valid candidate pairs as a separate list of separate candidates from the normal check list?

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

>If it's not in any check list, then why not just add it to a check list in the Succeeded state?

I haven’t studied it in detail, but I GUESS it could be done that way too. Also, implementers can choose to do it that way.

But, repeal of VALID LIST would require quite a bit of work. Also note that VALID LIST is used in draft-trickle etc, so I wonder whether it’s worth the effort…

Regards,

Christer


On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:20 PM Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

I need to take one step back.

Keep in mind that pairs in the VALID LIST do not necessarily exist in any CHECK LIST.

See section 6.2.5.3.2.

Regards,

Christer

From: "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Thursday 1 June 2017 at 04:20
To: Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Ice] Peter's review of ICEbis - Why do we model valid candidate pairs as a separate list of separate candidates from the normal check list?

What's the different between "valid" and "succeeded"?


On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:50 PM Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi,

> - Why do we model valid candidate pairs as a separate list of separate candidates from the normal check list?
> Why not just say that some candidate pairs are valid.  Why have this list of them?    Seems like we could remove the concept.

This is related to an e-mail I sent some time ago, where I asked whether we really need all states etc, and even suggested we could remove some of it. However, I then decided not to do it, because it could end up in a real mess.

But, related to your question, when I had a look at it I was thinking that “VALID” could just be a candidate pair state value, rather than a separate list.

Regards,

Christer