A Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Usage for Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (Trickle ICE)
draft-ietf-mmusic-trickle-ice-sip-18
Yes
(Ben Campbell)
No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Ignas Bagdonas)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2018-04-03 for -14)
Unknown
NoObj in the "This is way outside my knowledge base, trusting sponsoring AD" sense.
Adam Roach Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
(2018-06-22 for -17)
Unknown
Thanks to the authors for addressing my comments and discuss. I'm glad to see this work draw to a conclusion.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -14)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Unknown
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-03-29 for -14)
Unknown
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)?
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Unknown
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-06-29)
Unknown
thank you for addressing my DISCUSS
Ignas Bagdonas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Unknown
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-07-02)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my discuss! Sorry for the long delay!
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-04-04 for -14)
Unknown
I share Adam's concern over the use of IPv6 addresses in the srflx example.