Re: [MMUSIC] ICE offer/answer/candidate exchange terminology

Ari Keränen <ari.keranen@ericsson.com> Fri, 02 October 2015 14:32 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63C271A6EE2 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:32:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.901
X-Spam-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9XMpJ0vxAOiV for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:32:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sessmg22.ericsson.net (sessmg22.ericsson.net [193.180.251.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E56A41A1E0B for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 07:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-AuditID: c1b4fb3a-f79136d0000071e2-03-560e95656268
Received: from ESESSHC022.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [153.88.253.124]) by sessmg22.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 3F.50.29154.5659E065; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:32:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from Aris-MacBook-Pro.local (153.88.183.153) by smtp.internal.ericsson.com (153.88.183.86) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:32:05 +0200
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <56056142.20608@ericsson.com> <56056E62.3040904@andyet.net>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ari_Ker=c3=a4nen?= <ari.keranen@ericsson.com>
Message-ID: <560E9564.6010801@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:32:04 +0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56056E62.3040904@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFtrKLMWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM+JvjW7qVL4wg7tdZhZTlz9msXh/fSWL xalHR5gtFh+4z+rA4nHuzjV2jym/N7J6LFnykymAOYrLJiU1J7MstUjfLoErY+2lDSwFc9gr zizZxNrAeJe1i5GTQ0LARGL28wmMELaYxIV769m6GLk4hASOMkqc3ziLFcLZyChxrG0lE0iV sICrxOep+8FsEQFPiTk/N7OD2EIC7hLHTm9nAbGZBTIl5p6+C1bDJmAr8bt9D5jNK6AtcWnO JbBtLAIqEjMndoH1igqkSby79giqRlDi5MwnYHM4BbQkni0/DDXTQmLm/POMELa8RPPW2cwQ e1Ulrv57xTiBUXAWkvZZSFpmIWlZwMi8ilG0OLW4ODfdyEgvtSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwnA9u +W21g/Hgc8dDjAIcjEo8vApPecOEWBPLiitzDzFKc7AoifM2Mz0IFRJITyxJzU5NLUgtii8q zUktPsTIxMEp1cDou217/ITge89W794uvX3jwrKsteIeETKzhG+5/JWbddpY4fSJ9RsWdmZ0 77phYbZae3/w5zt6EZ5xZpvDl53MYPFK5Fz35/bk0sStLV+UC0W6bh6/M8/f6u9m86rXG5Q2 ctzSWKV2Q0V42gyje3b7fL5OPPv6cGEf6/b8uyf9lHbf9HKZ8Hj9cSWW4oxEQy3mouJEAMKG Y8ZIAgAA
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/jh0PURQB_Ez7_88WugzKw-IobAo>
Cc: "Suhas Nandakumar \(snandaku\)" <snandaku@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] ICE offer/answer/candidate exchange terminology
X-BeenThere: mmusic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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, 02 Oct 2015 14:32:09 -0000

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).


Thanks,
Ari