[MMUSIC] Mirja Kühlewind's Discuss on draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Mirja Kühlewind <[e-mail]>]

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-14: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the well-written doc and the quick response to the initial tsv
review. Also thanks to Jörg for the thorough and very helpful review!

As flagged by the tsv review, there can be an issue with the aggregation of
candidates in one INFO message when rate limited and the path MTU/UPD
fragmentation. While this is a small point only and I'm sure it can be easily
addressed, it important enough that I decided to put a discuss in. I'm sure
this can be resolved quickly as well.

Also if the document could give further guidance on an acceptable maximum for
the rate of INFO requests that be even better!


----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial comments:

1) sec 4.3.2: "When sending the Answer in the 200 OK response to the INVITE
request,
   the Answerer needs to repeat exactly the same Answer that was
   previously sent in the unreliable provisional response in order to
   fulfill the corresponding requirements in [RFC3264].  Thus, the
   Offerer needs to be prepared for receiving a different number of
   candidates in that repeated Answer than previously exchanged via
   trickling and MUST ignore the candidate information in that 200 OK
   response."
   What do I miss? Why can there be a different number of candidates if the
   repeated Answer needs to be exactly the same...? Or is there an "not"
   missing? Not an expert though, so might be just me...

2) I guess section 10.1 could also be moved to the appendix but it is short
enough that leaving it in the body is fine as well.