Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE review

Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net> Mon, 19 October 2015 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <peter@andyet.net>
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 DFF8B1B2B41 for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable
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 EzGeCc7G9ukW for <mmusic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io0-f182.google.com (mail-io0-f182.google.com [209.85.223.182]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD0A71B2B34 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iow1 with SMTP id 1so205574668iow.1 for <mmusic@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:cc:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uhw5r8OaT4gy6t7O0Ff7br7Nx/HvIMTc5KzPK4D0t80=; b=GPI/d56Vf7XATJf/2228gvvKSwBVOPUFu9sDu/9i6HocXbAPMDGHHaUctRWaHK/fcD 2HYwf7s+/qE00SdIjDmMXaZNl78tS70LgMs181gdqQvtDjjTw6nBqmtq80wNAYbBu4k8 +bfXP/iwEfG0cuSj34OuT3BU1QQ00oi+MytyNfxWqFy6rZurA9DMY3C7pVjrpP/k2kQh S080IH1Q2usHcAzq8EE8BBvX0U6mdByHVjxsCI5QEcICiGWoIuvOopGab6VxE8I2dg5P ly/6y8lAxLv3CAFffnAQe/yzqd2H1bkxkOrBXdbNW/2S/bH2xTmN4uJ3P9/P1BrjG1Bv Mxmg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkyURFIjXVMWQKMPxcmiFboLGQKVz6fpWXobDLMyfZrhEZRnxzlPDqAAhL3WwfkRWH3OSox
X-Received: by 10.107.18.91 with SMTP id a88mr13756135ioj.91.1445278558014; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:15:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aither.local (c-73-34-202-214.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [73.34.202.214]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id d6sm14377140ioe.30.2015.10.19.11.15.56 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:15:57 -0700 (PDT)
To: "Pal Martinsen (palmarti)" <palmarti@cisco.com>, mmusic <mmusic@ietf.org>
References: <6A95BC34-591E-4BC0-B861-AF504D47A56D@cisco.com>
From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
Message-ID: <5625335C.3@andyet.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 12:15:56 -0600
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: <6A95BC34-591E-4BC0-B861-AF504D47A56D@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mmusic/pTm-rvReRjTyzaXY5ZUzUiMqVFQ>
Cc: ice@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Trickle ICE review
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: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:16:03 -0000

Hi Pal,

Thanks for the detailed review. I recently volunteered to help Emil, 
Eric, and Justin finish this spec. Unfortunately your review is large so 
I won't have time to address all of the issues you've raised today 
before the submission deadline. However, see some comments inline.

On 9/22/15 3:48 AM, Pal Martinsen (palmarti) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here is my review of the Trickle ICE draft.
>
> Some technical issues/questions:
>
> - Some confusion regarding the checklist state. This is also somewhat
> confusing in the vanilla spec. A checklist has three defined states:
> Running, Failed and Succeeded. But it can also implicitly be described
> as frozen or waiting dependent on the state of the candidate_pairs in
> the list. I think Trickle ICE would benefit if we added another state:
> Waiting_for_candidates.
> Action: Discuss Checklist sates in ICEbis and addition states in Trickle
> ICE during next IETF meeting?

Yes, this would be a good topic to discuss then. I will also start a 
separate thread on the ICE WG list on this point.

> - I think Trickle ICE would benefit a lot from the outcome of
> continious-nomination and the passive-agressive proposals. At least if
> we are aiming for Trickle ICE to be used as an address mobility
> technique as well. Depends how quick we want trickle ICE out of the
> door. This can easily be fixed by another draft describing Trickle ICE
> mobility later

As I understand it, the trickle ICE spec was originally intended to 
document existing usage.

I would like to hear from the chairs of the ICE WG about what they 
envision for scope and timeline of this I-D. Again, I can start a thread 
about that on the ICE WG list.

> - Separate SDP from the documents as done with ICEbis?

I think that would be helpful - I know I've found it a bit confusing to 
read because of how SDP seems to be sort-of but not-quite normative.

I'll reply to the rest of your message separately because it's quite 
thorough. :-)

Peter