[Ice] Confirmation about tie breaker behavior changes ICEbis
Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com> Wed, 14 March 2018 03:46 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 92C0E126BF3 for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:46:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 CCqh2XpAaq1x for <ice@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:46:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x234.google.com (mail-wm0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::234]) (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 F3F96124E15 for <ice@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x234.google.com with SMTP id h76so1304339wme.4 for <ice@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vUq9daG35a7nf5mb2Re0FeB2UkrabV9uLFSKfaqzguA=; b=OV2i2pY/oDWpuOCQqmrivfMTEVqNHbjl31rmHjUbAgBc9UtlYRBN0sXUgzKlXuYkmq lrtqGSG3+E02mQ8DV4AyXWfzkNXLjYZ1XH1zXpsRmDWiPBLc3q8QpZtz+4myOP04Q+IR umFZzrWfDtD9Dhma19jepjnM8/e96GjgmG8/cgxLicLyaj50hzYyxgKy7MHXDfS/9z9e tHCp/CTe1MwVd1BR+GzIJhssJgcoXts8SOzO0gwfC8FNDUYFQo9oSpctCFZpGt0lcyiH MeYLomJQqG+tZ7BqVrsJmH1JymRKPhylHVivuTzMzj97RSlflbJaFMxtCmY2fVRWskE/ nN6A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vUq9daG35a7nf5mb2Re0FeB2UkrabV9uLFSKfaqzguA=; b=HZ7KQNnNpqMjUqyddZtgl3FWxe/XVvgy5jyQ2wWtUBB8/cxYe2IrXtit0PahOYnaAA ym6w9oarqjB39OW1NszlcD84ICFd5LOe8IeCRfS61wR5VUeU2od/X4fKFQSRJ7/9ZF33 xml07GhxpHEc8jTZuRuOprwWnG6awgBfPy39gND/9D1Iuriw5a/vpfD2UYVjDx6XVNxh WpWftf6iHIO8GVnXcPJUr1cLiHgHzzKo1jvFcUI81VNOAathUmw/4IRW/z4TXQpVJtCs aZWxxi3CBim/2z4wGiVXBB9/i2pK8eXB68vs2movHlnFmySTVSta/nVDV7AOAgXW9PBr 35JQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7Ehd1D06v/YCvs21WDBfzaFr/TPNkAFFhOUTzWfOsine+cM9SDM rYxu53LnjfV5cKG/bzZ+Y71k/tgoj04xanPtSATWic9k
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELu4JN4lLV4NdQ46kSoATGNGH1rq1UlGxRRAyI+iTOr5a7T7GwMs8qOEOX7LLxYdPx1XnLKC+J2gxD6reOAfKmw=
X-Received: by 10.28.174.11 with SMTP id x11mr318543wme.124.1520999195788; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 20:46:35 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Peter Thatcher <pthatcher@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 03:46:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CAJrXDUHs9gLVS8fZc0Gcc08mYui25mim0CX_K4B1X9XO38qFAA@mail.gmail.com>
To: ICE WG <ice@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11444cb2c560f40567573800"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ice/x99ck65m3_DRDKaSg0T7e-Nji6Y>
Subject: [Ice] Confirmation about tie breaker behavior changes ICEbis
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: Wed, 14 Mar 2018 03:46:39 -0000
In the changes to ICEbis during the IESG review (thanks again Christer!), there is one item that has come up that is not just editorial: The changing of the tie breaker value during a role change due to role conflict has changed from a MAY to a MUST. This was to address the very rare situation when both sides choose the same tie breaker value. If you disagree with this change, please let it be known. If we don't hear anything, we will assume consensus and proceed with publication of ICEbis. Thanks! By the way, you can read rest of the changes to ICEbis at the links below, but in my opinion as shepherd after reading through all of them thoroughly, they are editorial except for this issue. https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-17.txt&url2=draft-ietf-ice-rfc5245bis-20.txt
- [Ice] Confirmation about tie breaker behavior cha… Peter Thatcher
- Re: [Ice] Confirmation about tie breaker behavior… Peter Thatcher