Re: [Ice] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-ice-trickle-18: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 10:57:59AM -0600, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> 
> Specifically, I suggest the following revised text for Section 8.1:
> 
> ###
> 
> 8.1.  Pairing Newly Learned Candidates and Updating Check Lists
> 
>    Forming candidate pairs works as described in the ICE specification
>    [rfc5245bis].  However, adding the new pair to a check list happens
>    according to the following rules:
> 
>    1.  If the new pair's local candidate is server reflexive, the agent
>        MUST replace the candidate with its base before completing the
>        redundancy check in step 2.
> 
>    2.  The agent eliminates redundant pairs by following the rules in
>        Section 5.1.3 of [rfc5245bis], but only if the old pair has a

I wonder if "old" is ambiguous here.

-Benjamin

>        state of Waiting or Frozen (thus avoiding removal of pairs for
>        which connectivity checks are in flight or for which connectivity
>        checks have already yielded a definitive result).
> 
>    3.  If after the foregoing redundancy test 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.
> 
>    4.  Otherwise, add the new pair to the check list.
> 
> ###
> 
> Peter
>