[Ice] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ice-pac-04: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-ice-pac-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-pac/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Like Eric (and others) I think making a change to trickle before it becomes an
RFC would be as better idea than Update'ing it in this way.

I also think it would be really useful for the Abstract to have a sentence
saying (in a very high level way *how* this updates RFC8445 e.g:  This document
updates RFC8445 by requiring that an ICE   agent wait a minimum amount of time
before declaring ICE failure,   even if there are no candidate pairs left".
This makes it clear to implementors if/why they need to read this document.