Re: [Ice] Peter's review of ICEbis - removal of lower-priority candidate pairs (5.1.2.5)

[Peter Thatcher <[e-mail]>]

So basically add that it should be evenly distributed to avoid starving one
check list?

That sounds good to me.  Just make sure you don't have 101 check lists :).

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:13 PM Christer Holmberg <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > - If we remove lower-priority candidate pairs across check lists, what
> >happens if a certain check list is starved because all of its candidate
> >pairs are lower priority?
> > One option might be to say the limit is per check list.  Another is to
> >recognise that it might happen but live with it.
>
> My understanding was always that the limit is per check list, but I agree
> it may not be very clear.
>
> Perhaps we could modify the text as below:
>
>    In order to limit the attacks described in Section 15.4.1, an agent
>    MUST limit the total number of connectivity checks the agent performs
>    across all CHECK LISTs to a specific value, and this value MUST be
>    configurable. A default of 100 is RECOMMENDED.  This limit is
>    enforced by, within each CHECK LIST, discarding the lower-priority
> candidate
>    pairs of that CHECK LIST, until there are less than a total of 100
> candidate
>    pairs in the CHECK LIST SET. The discarding of candidate pairs SHOULD be
>    distributed equally throughout the CHECK LISTs in the CHECK LIST SET.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>
>