Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-ice-trickle-16.txt> (Trickle ICE: Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Protocol) to Proposed Standard

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:45:43 +0100

On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 02:06:31PM -0800,
 The IESG <[email-masked]> wrote 
 a message of 38 lines which said:

> The IESG has received a request from the Interactive Connectivity
> Establishment WG (ice) to consider the following document: - 'Trickle ICE:
> Incremental Provisioning of Candidates for the
>    Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE) Protocol'
>   <draft-ietf-ice-trickle-16.txt> as Proposed Standard

It may seem a detail, but we already have something named Trickle, in
RFC 6206. Is this name collision a good idea?

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 10:26:47 -0700

> RFC 6206. Is this name collision a good idea?

It's not a great thing (I for one didn't notice RFC 6206 until now).
However, this I-D defines "Trickle ICE" and its domain of operation and
implementation is quite different (NAT traversal vs. local multicast).
Thus I don't see significant harm, but you'd expect me to say that...

Peter

P.S. There are two kinds of "Jabber" too (the Ethernet error condition
and the instant messaging protocol).