[MMUSIC] ICE offer/answer/candidate exchange terminology

Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> Fri, 16 October 2015 11:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
X-Original-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47ED21A8F4F; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 04:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9c3dC7hJmKhR; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 04:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 76D7F1A8F4A; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 04:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79136d0000071e2-94-5620dcdeca17
Received: from ESESSHC014.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain []) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id C9.53.29154.EDCD0265; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:17:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from o73.nomadiclab.com ( by smtp.internal.ericsson.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server id; Fri, 16 Oct 2015 13:17:49 +0200
To: mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>, ice <ice@ietf.org>
References: <56056142.20608@ericsson.com> <56056E62.3040904@andyet.net> <560E9564.6010801@ericsson.com>
From: Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <5620DCDD.8050802@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 14:17:49 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <560E9564.6010801@ericsson.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFjrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+Jvje69OwphBjvv61h8u1BrMXX5YxaL 99dXslicenSE2WLxgfusDqwe5+5cY/eY8nsjq8eSJT+ZApijuGxSUnMyy1KL9O0SuDK2TP3N VrCDs+Jw/zn2BsYd7F2MnBwSAiYSS5esYoSwxSQu3FvP1sXIxSEkcJRRouHnJ2YIZx2jxL03 h8A6hAUsJN682Q7WISJgINHVsJUFxBYSyJTYuuEcO0gDs8A0Roldh3pYIRLqEkdWL2cCsdkE bCV+t+8Bsjk4eAW0JU5e8QIJswioSvR8WQA2U1QgTeLwtQ9grbwCghInZz4Bm88poCMx7fws NhCbGeiGmfPPM0LY8hLNW2czQ6xSlbj67xXjBEahWUjaZyFpmYWkZQEj8ypG0eLU4uLcdCMj vdSizOTi4vw8vbzUkk2MwHA/uOW31Q7Gg88dDzEKcDAq8fAqRCmECbEmlhVX5h5ilOZgURLn bWZ6ECokkJ5YkpqdmlqQWhRfVJqTWnyIkYmDU6qBsemWraFnvfvLjtjIPxFvziVcVOO7oNhi tmXJMd2F/2W6p/+8v7tuknTd2qK8eY+LtbY+anLe9t32xK/VfjOOsXpeVVJ7IBwp6lF42KmP 4fk8hcLDDgc0Db8Vn41lD+Na4Sg//4l7x8EH95i7/wkV3q9aUiAbof/na9zxXzL3vphpfK5w uMa1UYmlOCPRUIu5qDgRAByhm+FYAgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/TWX4r1Cb781jXUthUqHNLDCTQ4k>
Cc: "Suhas Nandakumar (snandaku)" <snandaku@cisco.com>
Subject: [MMUSIC] ICE offer/answer/candidate exchange terminology
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "ice@ietf.org" <ice@ietf.org>
List-Id: Multiparty Multimedia Session Control Working Group <mmusic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mmusic/>
List-Post: <mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic>, <mailto:mmusic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:17:54 -0000

(cross posting to MMUSIC and ICE to move the thread to the ICE list; 
please reply to ICE list)

On 02/10/15 17:32, Ari Keränen wrote:
> On 25/09/15 18:55, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
>> On 9/25/15 8:59 AM, Ari Keränen wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> For quite some time now we have had discussions on how could we best get
>>> rid of the remaining RFC3264 offer/answer language in ICEbis.
>>> Together with Suhas and Pål-Erik we discussed this off-line and came to
>>> conclusion that we have two reasonable options for the "offer/answer
>>> part" of the terminology: "ICE offer & ICE answer" and "ICE candidate
>>> exchange".
>> Given the existence of trickle ICE, I much prefer "candidate exchange".
> Thanks for the feedback Peter!
> At the moment it seems there's more support for the "candidate exchange"
> terminology. And no one has said they can't live with that.
> Would be great to have more feedback from folks, and in particular
> please, let us know if "candidate exchange" is in your opinion a bad
> idea (and why).

No one seems to be against this idea, so we will go forward with the 
terminology change.

Ari (as ICE bis editor)