Re: [Ice] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ice-pac-03

Justin Uberti <justin@uberti.name> Mon, 20 January 2020 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <juberti@gmail.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 2E74C120026; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:06:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no 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 Vekr_PR05Jy1; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:06:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-f174.google.com (mail-lj1-f174.google.com [209.85.208.174]) (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 57701120024; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:06:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-f174.google.com with SMTP id w1so32247101ljh.5; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:06:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9p7MeptcT+0EvEFXEsbgpaHwXELh61K8VfGPs5seujA=; b=LEsuq19Xrvc9cbPThW4H9teYk0EoY1Uz0QNSwwYMt/cbzYjrEtz1zbP47eDkigu58R Cdeezw5MAy1ofIqwVO8NAAIKStksBSew972A3SUqUJ//ZHjQD78i7Z+0kyb2NKqBJfyD xtGOhHdCuf0gSXPN75230ABfCoaPQqasKNhlM4jLVE4LwKjmnyktf6540Nb2HKEWI5Z+ F9SNi4qO3Dz0Z2GW1y71MCFMJmR6NExq6YP1wrbIKTHxb8WUf7oFK1tKEYXj8SL2jVMc atBkoP6ccyzaPVK8OfkqYWEjX2bsYylwOBFuW/SuHrwvqvfb3nKnuw6EePMmzfCPx1ON lQWA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUXPr+yzehFanKrknDdp+PikHnYaiuqUZ0GcgZ4Rf47QWqHtn4K eNS/j+uNgUQekVy8P++afwiq4MfGN6lDCIYdIJU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzdipDKHptJEZKBm/4TJ+9RUPPAcxUiIeoCJD1Jfu1BpjsuR4fBzTTkV63ZA1lNSxGbQpsy1HCotmxuTGEIVtE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:910b:: with SMTP id m11mr11840997ljg.213.1579489567342; Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:06:07 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <157942421019.19616.10503398711760845208@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <157942421019.19616.10503398711760845208@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Justin Uberti <justin@uberti.name>
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2020 19:05:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CALe60zBihCASoeOH5_H52vUHn4FxjqRGMvD44dcex-uuy3HOOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yoshifumi Nishida <nsd.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: tsv-art@ietf.org, last-call@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ice-pac.all@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000968355059c89924d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/IePwuaiSK89Ppn0BnFZGueWwXLU>
Subject: Re: [Ice] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ice-pac-03
X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 03:06:11 -0000

On Sun, Jan 19, 2020 at 12:56 AM Yoshifumi Nishida via Datatracker <
noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

> Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida
> Review result: Almost Ready
>
> This document has been reviewed as part of the transport area review team's
> ongoing effort to review key IETF documents. These comments were written
> primarily for the transport area directors, but are copied to the
> document's
> authors and WG to allow them to address any issues raised and also to the
> IETF
> discussion list for information.
>
> When done at the time of IETF Last Call, the authors should consider this
> review as part of the last-call comments they receive. Please always CC
> tsv-art@ietf.org if you reply to or forward this review.
>
> Summary:
>    This document is straightforward and almost ready for publication,
>    but it will be better to clarify the following points.
>
> 1: How to calculate the PAC timer is not very clear to me.
>    Does this draft recommend to use the equation described in Section 14.3
> of
>    RFC8445 or are there other ways? I think this would be better to be
>    clarified.
>

Yes, the equation in 14.3 coupled with the STUN backoff guidance in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5389#section-7.2, although these values are
just recommendations. The point here is to say that whatever is used for
the check timeouts should also be used for the PAC timer.

>
> 2: I presume this draft only focuses on UDP candidates, but I think
> clarifying
> it would be useful.
>    I am also wondering how to treat PAC timer if agents have a mix of TCP
> and
>    UDP candidates.
>

The guidance here applies to both UDP and TCP candidates. It would not be
unheard of for a server to only offer TCP candidates, and the client to
offer zero candidates, as in S 3.1.