Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
Thanks to the authors for addressing my comments and discuss. I'm glad to see this work draw to a conclusion.
Section 5 has (and IIRC other places are similar): SIP User Agents (UAs) that support and intend to use trickle ICE are required by [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle] to indicate that in their Offers and Answers using the attribute "a=ice-options:trickle" and MUST include the SIP option-tag "trickle-ice" in a SIP Supported: header field. It's a little strange to me to say that the core trickle spec mandates specifically the "a=ice-options:trickle" attribute, which is only defined in this document. The core spec does mandate some form of indication, but maybe it is more clear to phrase as something like: SIP User Agents (UAs) that support and intend to use trickle ICE are required by [I-D.ietf-ice-trickle] to indicate that support in their Offers and Answers. For SIP, this is done using the attribute "a=ice-options:trickle", and the SIP option-tag "trickle-ice" MUST be included in a SIP Supported: header field. In the scenario depicted in Figure 10, how is it indicated to Bob that Alice supports trickle (and should that mechanism be indicated in the figure)?
I share Adam's concern over the use of IPv6 addresses in the srflx example.
NoObj in the "This is way outside my knowledge base, trusting sponsoring AD" sense.
Thanks for addressing my discuss! Sorry for the long delay!
thank you for addressing my DISCUSS