jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
Code change:
s/prevention/interference/ ... Censors can degrade performance to a particular site, or for a particular service, effectively making performance so bad for a site that users opt to use a different site or service. China is known to do this. Censors can try to have content removed via takedown requests, under the guise of laws that forbid certain content (e.g., hate speech or whatnot). The ANC is .za has been accused of using the laws in this fashion.
Will Scott also noted in feedback to me that throttling should get more of a call out than it currently does:

Related discussion:
text: interference is especially evident in the interruption of encrypted/ obfuscated protocols, such as those used by Tor Winter-2012. <del> 4.3. </del> <ins> 4.4. </ins> There are a variety of mechanisms that censors can use to block or filter access to content by altering responses from the DNS
Code change:
s/prevention/interference/ ... Censors can degrade performance to a particular site, or for a particular service, effectively making performance so bad for a site that users opt to use a different site or service. China is known to do this. Censors can try to have content removed via takedown requests, under the guise of laws that forbid certain content (e.g., hate speech or whatnot). The ANC is .za has been accused of using the laws in this fashion.
Will Scott also noted in feedback to me that throttling should get more of a call out than it currently does:

Related discussion:
text: TLDs as well, but only Iran has acted by blocking all Israeli (.il) domains Albert-2011. <del> 4.4. </del> <ins> 4.5. </ins> Distributed Denial of Service attacks are a common attack mechanism used by "hacktivists" and black-hat hackers, but censors have used
Code change:
s/prevention/interference/ ... Censors can degrade performance to a particular site, or for a particular service, effectively making performance so bad for a site that users opt to use a different site or service. China is known to do this. Censors can try to have content removed via takedown requests, under the guise of laws that forbid certain content (e.g., hate speech or whatnot). The ANC is .za has been accused of using the laws in this fashion.
Will Scott also noted in feedback to me that throttling should get more of a call out than it currently does:

Related discussion:
text: comandeered those user agents to send DDoS traffic to various sites Marczak-2015. <del> 4.5. </del> <ins> 4.6. </ins> While it is perhaps the crudest of all censorship techniques, there is no more effective way of making sure undesirable information isn't
Code change:
s/prevention/interference/ ... Censors can degrade performance to a particular site, or for a particular service, effectively making performance so bad for a site that users opt to use a different site or service. China is known to do this. Censors can try to have content removed via takedown requests, under the guise of laws that forbid certain content (e.g., hate speech or whatnot). The ANC is .za has been accused of using the laws in this fashion.
Will Scott also noted in feedback to me that throttling should get more of a call out than it currently does:

Related discussion:
text: can be physically seized or the hosting provider can be required to prevent access Anderson-2011. <ins> 6.4. In some countries, legal mechanisms exist where an individual can issue a legal request to a content host that requires the host to take down content.  Examples include the voluntary systems employed by companies like Google to comply with "Right to be Forgotten" policies in the European Union Google-RTBF and the copyright-oriented notice and takedown regime of the United States Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Section 512 DMLP-512. </ins> 7. This document benefited from discussions with Stephane Bortzmeyer,
Code change:
Ta and RTO settings are now the same for real-time media and non-real-time media. An appendix has been added, showing bandwidth consumption based on different values, and different ufrag value sizes.

Related discussion:
text: 13.2. <del> In cases where ICE is used to establish some kind of session that is not real time, and has no fixed rate associated with it that is known to work on the network in which ICE is deployed, Ta and RTO revert to more conservative values.  Ta SHOULD be configurable, SHOULD have a default of 500 ms, and MUST NOT be configurable to be less than 500 ms. </del> <ins> ICE agents SHOULD use the default Ta value, 50 ms, but MAY use another value based on the characteristics of the associated media. ICE agents MUST NOT use a Ta value smaller than 5 ms. If an ICE agent wants to use another Ta value than the default value, the agent MUST indicate the proposed value to its peer during the ICE exchange.  Both agents MUST use the higher value of the proposed values.  If an agent does not propose a value, the default value is used for that agent when comparing which value is higher. NOTE: sec-concheckbw shows examples of required bandwidth, using different Ta values. </ins> <del> If other Ta value than the default is used, the agent MUST indicate the value it prefers to use in the ICE exchange.  Both agents MUST use the higher out of the two proposed values. </del> <ins> 13.3. </ins> <del> In addition, the retransmission timer for the STUN transactions, RTO, SHOULD be configurable and during the gathering phase, SHOULD have a default of: </del> <ins> During the ICE gathering phase, ICE agents SHOULD calculate the RTO value using the following formula: </ins> <del> where the number of pairs refers to the number of pairs of candidates with STUN or TURN servers. </del> <ins> For connectivity checks, ICE agents SHOULD calculate the RTO value using the following formula: </ins> <del> For connectivity checks, RTO SHOULD be configurable and SHOULD have a default of: </del> <ins> ICE agents MAY calculate the RTO value using other mechanisms than those described above.  ICE agents MUST NOT use a RTO value smaller than 500 ms. </ins> 14.
Code change:
The following issues are addressed in this commit: URL URL
LGTM
To prevent one check list from starving.
This was discussed (and, as far as I am concerned, agreed) on the list 1st June. But, it's good to have a reminder :)
This one has not been addressed as far as I can tell. Now we get to decided if it's important enough or not to do something about :)
I had a look at this, but for some reason it never got implemented. I think it should be an easy fix.
The changes section looks very small compared to how many changes we've made, so it definitely needs updating. Now we need to decide whether we have to update it before or after requesting publication.
Yes - we just have to remember everything :) However, I don't think we should go into details: the major changes (that I can think of when writing this) are removal of regular/aggressive nomination, and the changes related to "Emil's table".
LGTM

Related discussion:
text: In order to limit the attacks described in sec-ice-hammer, an ICE agent MUST limit the total number of connectivity checks the agent <del> performs across all check lists to a specific value, and this value MUST be configurable.  A default of 100 is RECOMMENDED.  This limit is enforced by discarding the lower-priority candidate pairs until there are less than 100.  It is RECOMMENDED that a lower value be utilized when possible, set to the maximum number of plausible checks that might be seen in an actual deployment configuration.  The requirement for configuration is meant to provide a tool for fixing this value in the field if, once deployed, it is found to be problematic. </del> <ins> performs across all check lists in the check list set.  This is done by limiting the total number of candidate pairs in the check list set.  The default limit of candidate pairs for the check list set is 100, but the value MUST be configurable.  The limit is enforced by, within in each check list, discarding lower-priority candidate pairs until the total number of candidate pairs in the check list set is smaller than the limit value.  The discarding SHOULD be done evenly so that the number of candidate pairs in each check list is reduced the same amount. It is RECOMMENDED that a lower limit value than the default is picked when possible, and that the value is set to the maximum number of plausible candidate pairs that might be created in an actual deployment configuration.  The requirement for configuration is meant to provide a tool for fixing this value in the field if, once deployed, it is found to be problematic. </ins> 6.1.2.6.
Code change:
The following issues are addressed in this commit: URL URL
LGTM
To prevent one check list from starving.
This was discussed (and, as far as I am concerned, agreed) on the list 1st June. But, it's good to have a reminder :)
This one has not been addressed as far as I can tell. Now we get to decided if it's important enough or not to do something about :)
I had a look at this, but for some reason it never got implemented. I think it should be an easy fix.
The changes section looks very small compared to how many changes we've made, so it definitely needs updating. Now we need to decide whether we have to update it before or after requesting publication.
Yes - we just have to remember everything :) However, I don't think we should go into details: the major changes (that I can think of when writing this) are removal of regular/aggressive nomination, and the changes related to "Emil's table".
LGTM

Related discussion:
text: 22. <del> Following is the list of changes from RFC 5245 </del> <ins> The purpose of this updated ICE specification is to: </ins> <del> The specification was generalized to be more usable with any protocol and the parts that are specific to SIP and SDP were moved to a SIP/SDP usage document I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-sip-sdp. </del> <ins> Clarify procedures in RFC 5245. </ins> <del> Default candidates, multiple components, ICE mismatch detection, subsequent offer/answer, and role conflict resolution were made optional since they are not needed with every protocol using ICE. </del> <ins> Make technical changes, due to discovered flows in RFC 5245 and based on feedback from the community that has implemented and deployed ICE applications based on RFC 5245. </ins> <del> With IPv6, the precedence rules of RFC 6724 are used instead of the obsoleted RFC 3483 and using address preferences provided by the host operating system is recommended. </del> <ins> Make the procedures signaling protocol independent, by removing the SIP and SDP procedures.  Procedures specific to a signaling protocol will be defined in separate usage documents.  I-D.ietf- mmusic-ice-sip-sdp defines the ICE usage with SIP and SDP. </ins> <del> Candidate gathering rules regarding loopback addresses and IPv6 addresses were clarified. </del> <ins> The following technical changes have been done: Aggressive nomination removed. The procedures for calculating candidate pair states and scheduling connectivity checks modified. Procedures for calculation of Ta and RTO modified. Active check list and frozen check list definitions removed. 'ice2' ice option added. IPv6 considerations modified. Usage with no-op for keepalives, and keepalives with non-ICE peers, removed. </ins>
Code change:
Made changes to address Warren's first and third, but not 2nd nit. I'm unsure whether the changes in the spacing I introduced will fix the odd spacing in Olle's name.
Warren noted the following nits in his ballot: 1: "Development of The Universal Solution has proved hard, however, for all the usual reasons." -- this is cute, but leaves people wondering what "all the usual reasons are". Perhaps just "Development of The Universal Solution has, however, proved hard." (or just cut after the "however in the original"). 2: I'm not sure why you have "Protocol" in the terminology section. It doesn't seem like it is useful for the document, and this document doesn't seem like the right place to (re) define it. 3: Acknowledgements: Funny spacing in "Olle E. Johansson

Related discussion:
text: identification systems (such as is served by telephone numbers or email addresses in other communications systems). <del> Development of The Universal Solution has proved hard, however, for all the usual reasons. </del> <ins> Development of The Universal Solution has, however, proved hard. </ins> The last few years have also seen a new platform rise for deployment of services: The browser-embedded application, or "Web application".
Code change:
Spencer had the following comment: I'm not sure how tutorial you want section 4 to be, but I'd at least mention appropriate retransmission and in-order delivery, in addition to congestion control, since you get that with SCTP on the data channel.

Related discussion:
text: entities that handle the data, but do not modify it (such as TURN relays). <del> It includes necessary functions for congestion control: When not to send data. </del> <ins> It includes necessary functions for congestion control, retransmission, and in-order delivery. </ins> WebRTC endpoints MUST implement the transport protocols described in I-D.ietf-rtcweb-transports.
Code change:
EKR entered the following DISCUSS: Your citation to ICE is to 5245-bis, but at least the JSEP editor consensus was that WebRTC depended on 5245, so this needs to be resolved one way or the other.
Sean asked me to leave this one open. Personally, I'd somewhat prefer to 5245bis because it separates out the SDP machinery, but JSEP has a specific section reference (section 15.4) that has to go to either 5245 or to mmusic-ice-sip-sdp, and one could argue that we need to pull in -sip-sdp here too. I'm OK with 5245 as a reference, but will let the chairs make the call.
I no longer care about this distinction.

Related discussion:
text: multiple data channels between them. An implementation of the Interactive Connectivity Establishment <del> (ICE) I-D.ietf-ice-rfc5245bis protocol.  An ICE Agent may also be an SDP Agent, but there exist ICE Agents that do not use SDP (for instance those that use Jingle XEP-0166). </del> <ins> (ICE) RFC5245 protocol.  An ICE Agent may also be an SDP Agent, but there exist ICE Agents that do not use SDP (for instance those that use Jingle XEP-0166). </ins> Communication between multiple parties, where the expectation is that an action from one party can cause a reaction by another
Code change:
reformulated the TCP point, addressed security with a reference to -qos.
From Ben Campbell's review:
Second point is fixed by . I'm not sure the third point is an improvement.
SSL is used exactly once, as part of the acronym "TURN/SSL". This is also the first mention of TURN, but the second was much more convenient to attach the expansion to. Given that it was so awkward to attach them, I included a new section listing the "used protocols" instead.
From Magnus Westerlund in IETF LC: Section 8.1: [I-D.martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness] Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness", draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice- dualstack-fairness-02 (work in progress), February 2015. Can be updated as this is now an WG item in ICE.
Updated in
Fixed by
I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. It is in good shape and I have requested the last call. While the last call is ongoing, I would like to double-check that this document (particularly Section 4) raises no new security considerations that should be documented in Section 6. I'm wondering if there are scenarios where a malicious application could try to game the priority scheme to some ill effect? draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos talks a bit about this, so I'm wondering if anything needs to be said here. And I found a couple of nits to be resolved together with any LC comments: Sec 3.2 - Please update the citation to point to draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness-02. Sec 3.4 - "Third, using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay may result in less issues with TCP in regards to real-time constraints, e.g. due to head of line blocking." This is awkwardly phrased. I would suggest something like "Third, using TCP between the client's TURN server and its peer may result in more performance problems (due to head-of-line blocking) than using UDP." And one bit I left out — if text is to be added to reference draft-ietf-rtcweb-return, that should be done together with addressing nits and LC comments.
There seems no consensus to add RETURN, so I'm skipping this for now.

Related discussion:
text: browser MUST be able to communicate. When TURN is used, and the TURN server has IPv4 or IPv6 connectivity <del> to the peer or its TURN server, candidates of the appropriate types MUST be supported.  The "Happy Eyeballs" specification for ICE I- D.martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness SHOULD be supported. </del> <ins> to the peer or the peer's TURN server, candidates of the appropriate types MUST be supported.  The "Happy Eyeballs" specification for ICE I-D.ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness SHOULD be supported. </ins> 3.3.
Code change:
reformulated the TCP point, addressed security with a reference to -qos.
From Ben Campbell's review:
Second point is fixed by . I'm not sure the third point is an improvement.
SSL is used exactly once, as part of the acronym "TURN/SSL". This is also the first mention of TURN, but the second was much more convenient to attach the expansion to. Given that it was so awkward to attach them, I included a new section listing the "used protocols" instead.
From Magnus Westerlund in IETF LC: Section 8.1: [I-D.martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness] Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness", draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice- dualstack-fairness-02 (work in progress), February 2015. Can be updated as this is now an WG item in ICE.
Updated in
Fixed by
I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. It is in good shape and I have requested the last call. While the last call is ongoing, I would like to double-check that this document (particularly Section 4) raises no new security considerations that should be documented in Section 6. I'm wondering if there are scenarios where a malicious application could try to game the priority scheme to some ill effect? draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos talks a bit about this, so I'm wondering if anything needs to be said here. And I found a couple of nits to be resolved together with any LC comments: Sec 3.2 - Please update the citation to point to draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness-02. Sec 3.4 - "Third, using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay may result in less issues with TCP in regards to real-time constraints, e.g. due to head of line blocking." This is awkwardly phrased. I would suggest something like "Third, using TCP between the client's TURN server and its peer may result in more performance problems (due to head-of-line blocking) than using UDP." And one bit I left out — if text is to be added to reference draft-ietf-rtcweb-return, that should be done together with addressing nits and LC comments.
There seems no consensus to add RETURN, so I'm skipping this for now.

Related discussion:
text: establishing UDP relay candidates using TURN over TCP to connect to their respective relay servers. <del> Third, using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay may result in less issues with TCP in regards to real-time constraints, e.g. due to head of line blocking. </del> <ins> Third, using TCP between the client's TURN server and the peer may result in more performance problems than using UDP, e.g. due to head of line blocking. </ins> ICE-TCP candidates RFC6544 MUST be supported; this may allow applications to communicate to peers with public IP addresses across
Code change:
reformulated the TCP point, addressed security with a reference to -qos.
From Ben Campbell's review:
Second point is fixed by . I'm not sure the third point is an improvement.
SSL is used exactly once, as part of the acronym "TURN/SSL". This is also the first mention of TURN, but the second was much more convenient to attach the expansion to. Given that it was so awkward to attach them, I included a new section listing the "used protocols" instead.
From Magnus Westerlund in IETF LC: Section 8.1: [I-D.martinsen-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness] Martinsen, P., Reddy, T., and P. Patil, "ICE IPv4/IPv6 Dual Stack Fairness", draft-martinsen-mmusic-ice- dualstack-fairness-02 (work in progress), February 2015. Can be updated as this is now an WG item in ICE.
Updated in
Fixed by
I have reviewed this document in preparation for IETF last call. It is in good shape and I have requested the last call. While the last call is ongoing, I would like to double-check that this document (particularly Section 4) raises no new security considerations that should be documented in Section 6. I'm wondering if there are scenarios where a malicious application could try to game the priority scheme to some ill effect? draft-ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos talks a bit about this, so I'm wondering if anything needs to be said here. And I found a couple of nits to be resolved together with any LC comments: Sec 3.2 - Please update the citation to point to draft-ietf-mmusic-ice-dualstack-fairness-02. Sec 3.4 - "Third, using TCP only between the endpoint and its relay may result in less issues with TCP in regards to real-time constraints, e.g. due to head of line blocking." This is awkwardly phrased. I would suggest something like "Third, using TCP between the client's TURN server and its peer may result in more performance problems (due to head-of-line blocking) than using UDP." And one bit I left out — if text is to be added to reference draft-ietf-rtcweb-return, that should be done together with addressing nits and LC comments.
There seems no consensus to add RETURN, so I'm skipping this for now.

Related discussion:
text: 6. <del> Security considerations are enumerated in I-D.ietf-rtcweb-security. </del> <ins> RTCWEB security considerations are enumerated in I-D.ietf-rtcweb- security. Security considerations pertaining to the use of DSCP are enumerated in I-D.ietf-tsvwg-rtcweb-qos. </ins>
Code change:
NAME please review
From Magnus Westerlund in IETF LC review: Section 3.4: If TCP connections are used, RTP framing according to [RFC4571] MUST be used, both for the RTP packets and for the DTLS packets used to carry data channels. I think the last part of this sentence, unintentionally excludes the DTLS handshake packets. The ICE TCP spec also specifies that the STUN connectivity checks are using RFC4571 framing. Thus, I think some reformulation of this sentence is in order.

Related discussion:
text: UDP-blocking firewalls without using a TURN server. If TCP connections are used, RTP framing according to RFC4571 MUST be <del> used, both for the RTP packets and for the DTLS packets used to carry data channels. </del> <ins> used for all packets.  This includes the RTP packets, DTLS packets used to carry data channels, and STUN connectivity check packets. </ins> The ALTERNATE-SERVER mechanism specified in RFC5389 (STUN) section 11 (300 Try Alternate) MUST be supported.
Code change:
Just saving some typing because this section will eventually need to match what's in RFC8174.

Related discussion:
text: 2. The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", <del> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC2119. </del> <ins> "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here. </ins> 3.