IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ice] Peter's review of ICEbis - Why do we model valid candidate pairs as a separate list of separate candidates from the normal check list?

Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> Mon, 29 May 2017 06:50 UTC

Return-Path: <christer.holmberg@ericsson.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 1A8A8124217 for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 May 2017 23:50:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 PvemQUiE96Xn for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 May 2017 23:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E9921200B9 for <ice@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 May 2017 23:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-31fff70000004a6a-00-592bc49abf7d
Received: from ESESSHC012.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.183.54]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id BB.AE.19050.A94CB295; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:50:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ESESSMB109.ericsson.se ([169.254.9.30]) by ESESSHC012.ericsson.se ([153.88.183.54]) with mapi id 14.03.0339.000; Mon, 29 May 2017 08:50:02 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
To: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Ice] Peter's review of ICEbis - Why do we model valid candidate pairs as a separate list of separate candidates from the normal check list?
Thread-Index: AQHS2EfLSJWiXi6t0kqXcQwCFgzNtw==
Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 06:50:01 +0000
Message-ID: <D5519FD0.1D3BC%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.7.4.170508
x-originating-ip: [153.88.183.20]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_D5519FD01D3BCchristerholmbergericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFmpmkeLIzCtJLcpLzFFi42KZGbHdTHfWEe1IgyOfrSy+Xai1uLb8NasD k8eCTaUeS5b8ZApgiuKySUnNySxLLdK3S+DKuPwho2CrTMX6hxOYGhibJLoYOTkkBEwkFlxp ZgKxhQSOMEpM6zXpYuQCshczSjRP+MDexcjBwSZgIdH9TxukRkTAQ2Lzm+VsIDXCAnMZJa5/ 3cMM4ogIzGOU+L18FjNElZ7E31MPwGwWAVWJr1vfsYLYvALWEt93/gCzGQXEJL6fWgO2mVlA XOLWk/lMEBcJSCzZc54ZwhaVePn4HyvIEaJAM9/t94QIK0pcnb6cCSTMLJAg0bzCBGK6oMTJ mU9YJjAKzUIydBZC1SwkVRAlBhLvz81nhrC1JZYtfA1l60ts/HKWEcIGuvnyURQ1Cxg5VjGK FqcWF+emGxnppRZlJhcX5+fp5aWWbGIERs3BLb+tdjAefO54iFGAg1GJh7d0vXakEGtiWXFl 7iFGCQ5mJRHeqeVAId6UxMqq1KL8+KLSnNTiQ4zSHCxK4rwO+y5ECAmkJ5akZqemFqQWwWSZ ODilGhgtfyllhL9zaPv1piApZk+xV+2Jq5zO4cZh0ToRm/TEFxxSsmfk5Fs1jf/GFq3rTc05 y/5Mczp0KLBJpaDy8Ofy/5LJAnpqt5TV54XN3HY4v6dWbo3M/CDxI5ZsVQddm51SHzzkf/Py e7RUvfSP9A7ut0ZlmSayjz8dYptW/yfAtrvnsvilXCWW4oxEQy3mouJEAIIlcyKWAgAA
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/eNO-bHErW4CCr-SmY2nGP4cYHzs>
Subject: Re: [Ice] Peter's review of ICEbis - Why do we model valid candidate pairs as a separate list of separate candidates from the normal check list?
X-BeenThere: ice@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 29 May 2017 06:50:06 -0000

Hi,

> - Why do we model valid candidate pairs as a separate list of separate candidates from the normal check list?
> Why not just say that some candidate pairs are valid.  Why have this list of them?    Seems like we could remove the concept.

This is related to an e-mail I sent some time ago, where I asked whether we really need all states etc, and even suggested we could remove some of it. However, I then decided not to do it, because it could end up in a real mess.

But, related to your question, when I had a look at it I was thinking that “VALID” could just be a candidate pair state value, rather than a separate list.

Regards,

Christer

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email