Re: [MMUSIC] Review of draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-02

[Brandon Williams <[e-mail]>]

Having an empty checklist doesn't seem problematic to me. My comment was 
just that the purpose of creating an empty checklist is unclear to me 
from the text. Empty checklists won't happen with Vanilla ICE, so a 
potential implementer might need a little more detail about why they are 
created and what to do with them while they remain empty.

--Brandon

On 10/19/2015 02:04 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 10/15/15 8:07 AM, Brandon Williams wrote:
>> On 10/14/2015 11:23 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>>>> s 6.2
>>>> It's unclear to me why it's useful to monitor Active/Frozen state for
>>>> check lists with no remote and/or local candidates.
>>>
>>> Does §6.2 actually say that?
>>>
>>>> What is actually
>>>> being monitored in? Or is this just meant to indicate than an empty
>>>> checklist MUST/SHOULD be treated as frozen for the purpose of the
>>>> frozen
>>>> candidates algorithm?
>>
>> I was referring to this text from section 6.2:
>>
>>     Obviously in
>>     order for candidate pairing to be possible, it would be necessary
>>     that both the offer and the answer contained candidates.  If this was
>>     not the case agents will still create the check lists (so that their
>>     Active/Frozen state could be monitored and updated) but they will
>>     only populate them once they actually have the candidate pairs.
>>
>> This does seem to indicate that empty checklists might be created for
>> the purpose Active/Frozen state monitoring.
>
> Yes, it does. The assumption seems to be that candidate pairs will be
> forthcoming and that the user agents won't do any checking until the
> checklist is non-empty. Does that seem to be problematic?
>
> Peter
>
>

-- 
Brandon Williams; Chief Architect
Cloud Networking; Akamai Technologies Inc.