IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Ben Campbell" <ben@nostrum.com> Wed, 14 December 2016 04:21 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 1CDE6129567; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 20:21:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.796
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.796 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 sALuOrLYpw4R; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 20:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 BFEC1129566; Tue, 13 Dec 2016 20:21:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.39] (cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id uBE4Lbja041162 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:21:37 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-66-25-7-22.tx.res.rr.com [66.25.7.22] claimed to be [10.0.1.39]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
To: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <spencerdawkins.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 22:21:36 -0600
Message-ID: <05272C49-3FAB-4DFD-BC44-932C197572A9@nostrum.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKKJt-d7s7JVrWHRkH5WOPnR9073+DTjR91UnwiqzCOJbXe3AQ@mail.gmail.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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.6r5310)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/BzyWgGTRBJvff5pwWM3CJl90Ypc>
Cc: draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ice-dualstack-fairness.shepherd@ietf.org, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 04:21:53 -0000

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.)

Ben.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email