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

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

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