On 2/9/18 2:45 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 02:06:31PM -0800, > The IESG <iesg-secretary@xxxxxxxx> 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? 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).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature