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?

Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Fri, 02 June 2017 00:33 UTC

Return-Path: <pthatcher@google.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 E51AC129482 for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:33:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
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 cIJmCmH-mVnY for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi0-x22a.google.com (mail-oi0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::22a]) (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 359D612947E for <ice@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id w10so74171332oif.0 for <ice@ietf.org>; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 17:33:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=W8yHHX5k2qEkc3ZnCe1WTw1JE9lafRMvMz7m7wlBCuI=; b=iu32z3SlzVl9NV4w5lud3M8ULmVYfy5I8n/kb0KV5PnUgIsZHKG8eynn9Zg3CdYgLk hJMVETAikBNpzm62OVtW0r89n2a7sbn6+MaYZS1IgeXirt1UeY8K9sMnWOfjNqjpDidE ymo550m/vFnkExdr2PBjW/1CPHjOzQ4xqpx2tsw6wbmnnRgywqCYzNIMM8H6bxZUChs6 EZfs0BestcJ4hhra1USFepRQ9V0PX0zjQW3657hcP1FRWszBlFTb6hyQB0QNjsXacb7W CivAAb9vmVYAHSEQG9CA23VsZdlOr5X3CLGokUNs95xcyjaM9T3mSJ51t1la17AID4qz j09Q==
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; bh=W8yHHX5k2qEkc3ZnCe1WTw1JE9lafRMvMz7m7wlBCuI=; b=sELqlfX9IBpimMXgd6d9kOiabZvU2BUgFiwG+QA/egOlpM83j7mWn3XZORKtmlCbvb H+TkBMgL4nG1z0hy1k32VRFTnzuDGnsC2hFPpPrg0DcdgaEJyvrU6pe1Wljl0x6M7gHE hvm4lkbcS1PMAYP/ZstE3U2yOR0e2SENU9h2NJhbq2aaTwqi5mQAcDJucA/zItF9VLW7 9id/m4iVGslbRnxzklN36TVoMEZZjJ3LP9Yjup8bO3BHa08xuEOSN5OilIBREPA6S29D 9oX7gMcleRAyGj5x4mpS8tM8Truht3+XOY9DAJuPvM9ABhDus0m33zHWlyM8hy+O9Xx0 Eo1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAftksnL/U7FxdXTYo+Hu3IWtpnL6fqQecJePk2Vka6HBj9o84n 6IFLriFRQYD5nNqPM91CWcBjZMOZ19/LrGY=
X-Received: by 10.202.206.193 with SMTP id e184mr2744886oig.91.1496363617537; Thu, 01 Jun 2017 17:33:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <D5519FD0.1D3BC%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> <CAJrXDUFb3qRhv2P2oW4q87n_bgk5O7N4LD-s0qB9m4Av6vB9nQ@mail.gmail.com> <D5558DBC.1D6D4%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <D5558DBC.1D6D4%christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:33:27 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUHCTPEprCsU0d4A-iv3ViPkwCgCb50_aQ_fiwPTvtZKjg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d2e72e128710550ef4d30"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/jF79LOwWtl6ybaruGHK7Ba3MXRM>
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: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 00:33:40 -0000

If it's not in any check list, then why not just add it to a check list in
the Succeeded state?

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 11:20 PM Christer Holmberg <
christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I need to take one step back.
>
> Keep in mind that pairs in the VALID LIST do not necessarily exist in any
> CHECK LIST.
>
> See section 6.2.5.3.2.
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> From: "pthatcher@google.com" <pthatcher@google.com>
> Date: Thursday 1 June 2017 at 04:20
> To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>, "ice@ietf.org" <
> ice@ietf.org>
> 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?
>
> What's the different between "valid" and "succeeded"?
>
>
> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 11:50 PM Christer Holmberg <
> christer.holmberg@ericsson.com> wrote:
>
>> 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