Interactive Connectivity Establishment Patiently Awaiting Connectivity (ICE PAC)
draft-ietf-ice-pac-06
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2020-07-24
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2020-07-20
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2020-06-08
|
06 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2020-04-29
|
06 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to No IANA Actions from In Progress |
2020-04-29
|
06 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-ice-pac-06.txt |
2020-04-29
|
06 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-29
|
06 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Justin Uberti , Christer Holmberg |
2020-04-29
|
06 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-27
|
05 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2020-04-27
|
05 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2020-04-27
|
05 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2020-04-27
|
05 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2020-04-27
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent |
2020-04-27
|
05 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2020-04-27
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2020-04-27
|
05 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-04-24
|
05 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2020-04-24
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my Discuss point! I trust that the duplicated sentence ("As a result, [...]") can be handled by an RFC Editor … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my Discuss point! I trust that the duplicated sentence ("As a result, [...]") can be handled by an RFC Editor Note. |
2020-04-24
|
05 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Benjamin Kaduk has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2020-04-24
|
05 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::AD Followup from IESG Evaluation |
2020-04-24
|
05 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2020-04-24
|
05 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-ice-pac-05.txt |
2020-04-24
|
05 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-24
|
05 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Justin Uberti , Christer Holmberg |
2020-04-24
|
05 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2020-04-23
|
04 | Magnus Westerlund | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Magnus Westerlund |
2020-04-22
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot comment] Like Eric (and others) I think making a change to trickle before it becomes an RFC would be as better idea than Update'ing … [Ballot comment] 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. |
2020-04-22
|
04 | Warren Kumari | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Warren Kumari |
2020-04-22
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot comment] I support Ben Kaduk's position on clarifying the state machine. Thank you for the discussion I saw addressing that issue. Beyond that, editorial … [Ballot comment] 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/ |
2020-04-22
|
04 | Roman Danyliw | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Roman Danyliw |
2020-04-22
|
04 | Alissa Cooper | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper |
2020-04-22
|
04 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2020-04-21
|
04 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot discuss] I think we may have to be more specific about updates to the RFC 8445 state machine, namely whether we are specifying a … [Ballot discuss] I think we may have to be more specific about updates to the RFC 8445 state machine, namely whether we are specifying a new state for a checklist to be in (vs. keeping it somehow in the "Running" state and modifying the procedures for that state) and describing what happens in Section 7.2.5.4 when all candidate pairs in the checklist are Failed or Succeeded but the PAC timer has not expired. In other words, the combination of 8445 and this document need to be consistent about what the ICE state machine is. In contrast, Trickle is pretty clear about which conditions in which sections of [rfc5245bis] are updated and how, but we don't seem to provide the same level of detail. |
2020-04-21
|
04 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot comment] [I also had Éric's question about the Updates relationship, so thanks for that thread.] Section 4 While the timer is running, the … [Ballot comment] [I also had Éric's question about the Updates relationship, so thanks for that thread.] Section 4 While the timer is running, the ICE agent MUST NOT set the state of a checklist to Failed, even if the checklist has no pairs left to check. As a result, the ICE agent will not remove any data streams or set the state of the ICE session to Failed as long as the timer is running. This is, IIUC, the crux of the Discuss point -- how does this affect Setion 7.2.5.4 of RFC 8445? When the timer eventually elapses, the ICE agent MUST resume typical ICE processing, including setting any checklists containing only Failed pairs to the Failed state, as usual, and handling any I don't think "containing only Failed pairs" is exactly the criterion used by RFC 8445. One consequence of this behavior is that in cases where ICE should fail, e.g., where both sides provide candidates with unsupported address families, ICE will no longer fail immediately, and only fail when the PAC timer expires. However, because most ICE scenarios require an extended period of time to determine failure, the fact that some specific scenarios no longer fail fast should have minimal application impact, if any. Are there any scenarios that are guaranteed to fail both with and without PAC that could be special-cased to still fail fast? (The example given of "unsupported address families" does not seem like it is one, off the top of my head.) MAY use the PAC timer to do so. As always, the controlling ICE agent retains full discretion, and MAY decide, based on its own criteria, to nominate pairs prior to the timer elapsing. nit(?): I'd consider going with "PAC timer" again here at the end of the sentence. |
2020-04-21
|
04 | Benjamin Kaduk | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Benjamin Kaduk |
2020-04-21
|
04 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2020-04-21
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot comment] 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 … [Ballot comment] 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 |
2020-04-21
|
04 | Éric Vyncke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Éric Vyncke |
2020-04-20
|
04 | Erik Kline | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Erik Kline |
2020-04-20
|
04 | Robert Wilton | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Wilton |
2020-04-13
|
04 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2020-04-11
|
04 | Martin Duke | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Duke |
2020-04-06
|
04 | Amanda Baber | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed |
2020-04-06
|
04 | Amy Vezza | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2020-04-24 |
2020-04-04
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup |
2020-04-04
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot has been issued |
2020-04-04
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Murray Kucherawy |
2020-04-04
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Created "Approve" ballot |
2020-04-04
|
04 | Murray Kucherawy | Ballot writeup was changed |
2020-04-04
|
04 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2020-04-04
|
04 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed |
2020-04-04
|
04 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-ice-pac-04.txt |
2020-04-04
|
04 | (System) | New version approved |
2020-04-04
|
04 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Christer Holmberg , Justin Uberti |
2020-04-04
|
04 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2020-03-25
|
03 | Amy Vezza | Shepherding AD changed to Murray Kucherawy |
2020-01-25
|
03 | Adam Roach | Waiting for update based on TSVART review comments. |
2020-01-25
|
03 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup |
2020-01-24
|
03 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2020-01-23
|
03 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2020-01-23
|
03 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-ice-pac-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-ice-pac-03, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments: We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions. While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object. If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal Senior IANA Services Specialist |
2020-01-19
|
03 | Rifaat Shekh-Yusef | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Rifaat Shekh-Yusef. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-19
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2020-01-19
|
03 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Rifaat Shekh-Yusef |
2020-01-19
|
03 | Yoshifumi Nishida | Request for Last Call review by TSVART Completed: Almost Ready. Reviewer: Yoshifumi Nishida. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-17
|
03 | David Schinazi | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: David Schinazi. Sent review to list. |
2020-01-16
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Schinazi |
2020-01-16
|
03 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to David Schinazi |
2020-01-13
|
03 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Yoshifumi Nishida |
2020-01-13
|
03 | Wesley Eddy | Request for Last Call review by TSVART is assigned to Yoshifumi Nishida |
2020-01-12
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
2020-01-12
|
03 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Tim Wicinski |
2020-01-10
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2020-01-10
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-01-24): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: adam@nostrum.com, ice-chairs@ietf.org, Nils Ohlmeier , draft-ietf-ice-pac@ietf.org, … The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2020-01-24): From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: adam@nostrum.com, ice-chairs@ietf.org, Nils Ohlmeier , draft-ietf-ice-pac@ietf.org, ice@ietf.org, nohlmeier@mozilla.com Reply-To: last-call@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Interactive Connectivity Establishment Patiently Awaiting Connectivity (ICE PAC)) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Interactive Connectivity Establishment WG (ice) to consider the following document: - 'Interactive Connectivity Establishment Patiently Awaiting Connectivity (ICE PAC)' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2020-01-24. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract During the process of establishing peer-to-peer connectivity, ICE agents can encounter situations where they have no candidate pairs to check, and, as a result, conclude that ICE processing has failed. However, because additional candidate pairs can be discovered during ICE processing, declaring failure at this point may be premature. This document discusses when these situations can occur and proposes a way to avoid premature failure. This document updates RFC 8445 and RFC XXXX. [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.] The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-pac/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ice-pac/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. |
2020-01-10
|
03 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2020-01-10
|
03 | Adam Roach | Last call was requested |
2020-01-10
|
03 | Adam Roach | Last call announcement was generated |
2020-01-10
|
03 | Adam Roach | Ballot approval text was generated |
2020-01-10
|
03 | Adam Roach | Ballot writeup was generated |
2020-01-10
|
03 | Adam Roach | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested |
2019-10-15
|
03 | Nils Ohlmeier | Essay Style Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ice-pac-03 1. Summary Shepherd: Nils Ohlmeier Area Director: Adam Roach This document addresses a shortcoming of RFC 8445 which can … Essay Style Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ice-pac-03 1. Summary Shepherd: Nils Ohlmeier Area Director: Adam Roach This document addresses a shortcoming of RFC 8445 which can result in premature failure to establish a connection between two ICE agents. As this document updates 8445 it is targeted for the Standards Track. 2. Review and Consensus In the time from adopting the draft as a Working Group item in March 2019 until the Working Group Last Call several individuals from several companies actively discussed different aspects of the draft on the mailing list. The discussions were mostly done by a small group of ICE experts around details like when to start certain timers and how long the timers should be running. It appears that there is a general consensus from all participants about the problem and the chosen solution. Firefox has already implemented a very similar workaround in its ICE stack. 3. Intellectual Property Justin Uberti and Christer Holmberg have stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79. 4. Other Points Idnits reports no issues. The shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. This document also updates soon to be published draft-ietf-ice-trickle, but not further delay publication of this draft it’s assumed to be already published with a note in the abstract to the RFC editors to replace RFC XXXX with the assigned number. |
2019-10-15
|
03 | Ari Keränen | Essay Style Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ice-pac-03 1. Summary Shepherd: Nils Ohlmeier Area Director: Adam Roach This document addresses a shortcoming of RFC 8445 which can … Essay Style Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ice-pac-03 1. Summary Shepherd: Nils Ohlmeier Area Director: Adam Roach This document addresses a shortcoming of RFC 8445 which can result in premature failure to establish a connection between two ICE agents. As this document updates 8445 it is targeted for the Standards Track. 2. Review and Consensus In the time from adopting the draft as a Working Group item in March 2019 until the Working Group Last Call several individuals from several companies actively discussed different aspects of the draft on the mailing list. The discussions were mostly done by a small group of ICE experts around details like when to start certain timers and how long the timers should be running. It appears that there is a general consensus from all participants about the problem and the chosen solution. Firefox has already implemented a very similar workaround in its ICE stack. 3. Intellectual Property Justin Uberti and Christer Homlberg have stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79. 4. Other Points Idnits reports no issues. The shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. This document also updates soon to be published draft-ietf-ice-trickle, but not further delay publication of this draft it’s assumed to be already published with a note in the abstract to the RFC editors to replace RFC XXXX with the assigned number. |
2019-10-15
|
03 | Ari Keränen | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2019-10-15
|
03 | Ari Keränen | IESG state changed to Publication Requested from I-D Exists |
2019-10-15
|
03 | Ari Keränen | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2019-10-15
|
03 | Nils Ohlmeier | Essay Style Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ice-pac-03 1. Summary Shepherd: Nils Ohlmeier Area Director: Adam Roach This document addresses a shortcoming of RFC 8445 which can … Essay Style Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ice-pac-03 1. Summary Shepherd: Nils Ohlmeier Area Director: Adam Roach This document addresses a shortcoming of RFC 8445 which can result in premature failure to establish a connection between two ICE agents. As this document updates 8445 it is targeted for the Standards Track. 2. Review and Consensus In the time from adopting the draft as a Working Group item in March 2019 until the Working Group Last Call several individuals from several companies actively discussed different aspects of the draft on the mailing list. The discussions were mostly done by a small group of ICE experts around details like when to start certain timers and how long the timers should be running. It appears that there is a general consensus from all participants about the problem and the chosen solution. Firefox has already implemented a very similar workaround in its ICE stack. 3. Intellectual Property Justin Uberti and Christer Homlberg have stated that their direct, personal knowledge of any IPR related to this document has already been disclosed, in conformance with BCPs 78 and 79. 4. Other Points Idnits reports no issues. The shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. This document also updates soon to be published draft-ietf-ice-trickle, but not further delay publication of this draft it’s assumed to be already published with a note in the abstract to the RFC editors to replace RFC XXXX with the assigned number. |
2019-10-14
|
03 | Nils Ohlmeier | Essay Style Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ice-pac-03 1. Summary Shepherd: Nils Ohlmeier Area Director: Adam Roach This document addresses a shortcoming of RFC 8445 which can … Essay Style Document Writeup for draft-ietf-ice-pac-03 1. Summary Shepherd: Nils Ohlmeier Area Director: Adam Roach This document addresses a shortcoming of RFC 8445 which can result in premature failure to establish a connection between two ICE agents. As this document updates 8445 it is targeted for the Standards Track. 2. Review and Consensus In the time from adopting the draft as a Working Group item in March 2019 until the Working Group Last Call several individuals from several companies actively discussed different aspects of the draft on the mailing list. The discussions were mostly done by a small group of ICE experts around details like when to start certain timers and how long the timers should be running. It appears that there is a general consensus from all participants about the problem and the chosen solution. Firefox has already implemented a very similar workaround in its ICE stack. 3. Intellectual Property Justin Uberti and Christer Homberg both confirmed that IPR has been disclosed. 4. Other Points Idnits reports no issues. The shepherd believes this document is ready for publication. |
2019-10-13
|
03 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-ice-pac-03.txt |
2019-10-13
|
03 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-10-13
|
03 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Justin Uberti , Christer Holmberg |
2019-10-13
|
03 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2019-08-29
|
02 | Peter Thatcher | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from WG Document |
2019-07-24
|
02 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-ice-pac-02.txt |
2019-07-24
|
02 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-07-24
|
02 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Justin Uberti , Christer Holmberg |
2019-07-24
|
02 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2019-04-17
|
01 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-ice-pac-01.txt |
2019-04-17
|
01 | (System) | New version approved |
2019-04-17
|
01 | (System) | Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Justin Uberti , Christer Holmberg |
2019-04-17
|
01 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |
2019-03-27
|
00 | Cindy Morgan | Shepherding AD changed to Adam Roach |
2019-03-27
|
00 | Ari Keränen | Notification list changed to Nils Ohlmeier <nohlmeier@mozilla.com> |
2019-03-27
|
00 | Ari Keränen | Document shepherd changed to Nils Ohlmeier |
2019-03-26
|
00 | Ari Keränen | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2019-03-26
|
00 | Ari Keränen | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2019-03-26
|
00 | Ari Keränen | This document now replaces draft-holmberg-ice-pac instead of None |
2019-03-26
|
00 | Christer Holmberg | New version available: draft-ietf-ice-pac-00.txt |
2019-03-26
|
00 | (System) | WG -00 approved |
2019-03-26
|
00 | Christer Holmberg | Set submitter to "Christer Holmberg ", replaces to (none) and sent approval email to group chairs: ice-chairs@ietf.org |
2019-03-26
|
00 | Christer Holmberg | Uploaded new revision |