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
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
Precedence: list

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