Interactive Connectivity Establishment Patiently Awaiting Connectivity (ICE PAC)
RFC 8863

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Erik Kline Yes

Murray Kucherawy Yes

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2020-04-24 for -05)
Thanks for addressing my Discuss point!

I trust that the duplicated sentence ("As a result, [...]") can be handled by an RFC Editor Note.

Martin Duke No Objection

Robert Wilton No Objection

Roman Danyliw No Objection

Comment (2020-04-22 for -04)
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)
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)
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -04)
No email
send info