Re: [Ice] I-D Action: draft-ietf-ice-trickle-20.txt

[Christer Holmberg <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

...

>> Also, I don¹t think "in flight checks" is terminology defined in ICE, 
>> or STUN in general.
>
> Does that matter?

Why not use existing terminology? I assume you mean pairs in "In-Progress" state?

Something like:

       "(thus avoiding removal of pairs that have a state of In-Progress, and pairs for which
         connectivity checks have already yielded a definitive Sucessful or Failed result)."

...

>>> * Also in §11 (and §10 too), point 6 says:
>>>
>>>   6.  If after the relevant redundancy tests the check list where the
>>>       pair is to be added already contains the maximum number of
>>>       candidate pairs (100 by default as per [rfc5245bis]), the agent
>>>       SHOULD discard any pairs in the Failed state to make room for the
>>>       new pair.  If there are no such pairs, the agent SHOULD discard
>>>       the new pair.
>>>
>>> Discarding the new pair is not consistent with §6.1.2.5 of 5245bis; 
>>> instead, we should discard lower-priority pairs to prune things down 
>>> to the maximum number of candidate pairs.
>> 
>> Do we want to discard lower-priority pairs even if they are in 
>> "Succeeded" or "In-Progress" state?
>
> No, those pairs are already carved out by the rule that the agent "only checks existing 
> pairs if they have a state of Waiting or Frozen".

True. I got confused due to the reference issue in bullet 5. I withdraw the question.

Regards,

Christer