Interactive Connectivity Establishment Patiently Awaiting Connectivity (ICE PAC)
draft-ietf-ice-pac-06
Yes
Erik Kline
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Barry Leiba)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Martin Duke)
(Robert Wilton)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Erik Kline
Yes
Murray Kucherawy
Yes
Roman Danyliw
No Objection
Comment
(2020-04-22 for -04)
Sent
I support Ben Kaduk's position on clarifying the state machine. Thank you for the discussion I saw addressing that issue. Beyond that, editorial nits only: -- Section 3.1. Editorial. Per “It is entirely legal for …”, seems colloquial. Perhaps, “Per RFCXXX, an ICE agent could provide zero candidates of its own” -- Section 5. Typo. s/an backup mechanism/a backup mechanism/
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2020-04-22 for -04)
Sent
Like Eric (and others) I think making a change to trickle before it becomes an RFC would be as better idea than Update'ing it in this way. I also think it would be really useful for the Abstract to have a sentence saying (in a very high level way *how* this updates RFC8445 e.g: This document updates RFC8445 by requiring that an ICE agent wait a minimum amount of time before declaring ICE failure, even if there are no candidate pairs left". This makes it clear to implementors if/why they need to read this document.
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Comment
(2020-04-21 for -04)
Sent
Thank you for this short and easy to read document. But, I cannot refrain from wondering about this part as the trickle-ice I-D is still in RFC editor queue => easier to fix it in the body of the trickle-ice IMHO (could be wrong): "[RFC EDITOR NOTE: Please replace RFC XXXX with the RFC number of draft-ietf-ice-trickle once it has been published. Please also indicate that this specification updates RFC XXXX.]" I also wonder why section 1 talks about 'race conditions' while the issue is related to a too short default time-out or in the use cases of section 3. (in my mind, 'race conditions' is an unusual sequence of events). Explanations will be welcome (albeit not blocking). -éric
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Not sent
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Not sent
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Not sent
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2020-04-24 for -05)
Sent
Thanks for addressing my Discuss point! I trust that the duplicated sentence ("As a result, [...]") can be handled by an RFC Editor Note.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Not sent
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Not sent
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Sent
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Not sent