Tiru - thanks for advising me of your responses to the points in my review.
Do you and the other authors have any thoughts about my recommendations for section 5? - Ralph > On Aug 17, 2016, at 11:24 AM 8/17/16, Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) > <tire...@cisco.com> wrote: > > Hi Ralph, > > Thanks for the review. Please see inline. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.i...@gmail.com >> <mailto:rdroms.i...@gmail.com>] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2016 2:58 AM >> To: Review Area gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org> Team >> <gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>> >> Cc: draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery....@ietf.org >> <mailto:draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery....@ietf.org>; IETF discussion >> list >> <i...@ietf.org <mailto:i...@ietf.org>> >> Subject: Review of draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08 >> >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review >> Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for >> the IETF Chair. Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call >> comments you may receive. >> >> For more information, please see the FAQ at >> >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-tram-turn-server-discovery-08 >> Reviewer: Ralph Droms >> Review Date: 2016-08-09 >> IETF LC End Date: 2016-08-11 >> IESG Telechat date: unknown >> >> >> Summary: >> >> This draft is on the right track but has open issues, described in the >> review. >> >> The draft is well-written and appears to be ready for publication, except as >> noted below. >> >> Major issues: >> >> Section 5, DNS Service Discovery, includes more details about DNS Service >> Discovery (DNS-SD) than is necessary for this specification. >> While it can be useful to repeat some specific details of another >> specification >> for, there is a danger in writing too many details that may not be entirely >> in >> agreement with the published specification. In the case of this document, I >> suggest that section 5 be rewritten to just refer to DNS Service discovery, >> with >> a minimum of explanation. >> The example is useful ... although I think some of the details in the example >> ought to be changed. The use of DNS-SD over unicast DNS and multicast DNS >> can be mentioned in a sentence somewhere in section 5, as the use of DNS-SD >> is otherwise identical. I would leave out section 5.1 altogether. >> >> Looking at the IANA "Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number >> Registry" >> <www.iana.org/assignments/service-names-port-numbers/service-names- >> port-numbers.xhtml>, >> I see that TURN is registered as using service name "turn", rather than >> "turnserver" as in the example. Also in the example, the instance name >> "example.com" might be problematic, as the instance is usually just a single >> label. In fact, I interpret the text in the document to describe the >> instance >> name as a single label. It might be worth experimenting to see how DNS-SD >> libraries deal with a label like "example.com", or perhaps simply change >> instance in the example to something like "exampleco TURN Server" > > Changed to "exampleco TURN Server" and used service names "turn" and "turns". > >> >> Minor issues: >> >> Section 5 mentions the use of a TXT record to carry additional information >> about the TURN service instance. Are there any conventions for the >> name/value pairs carried in the TXT record? > > No conventions. > >> If not, I think there should be a >> note that any name/value pairs in the TXT record are left to local >> definition. > > Okay, added following line: > The TXT record can contain any key/value pairs left to the local definition. > >> >> Editorial issues: >> >> I suggest using the example.com <http://example.com/> domain rather than >> local in the example for >> clarity. Perhaps also change the intro sentence for the example: >> >> OLD: >> For example, TURN server advertises the following DNS records : >> NEW: >> For example, the following DNS records would be used for a TURN server with >> instance name "exampleco TURN Server" providing TURN service over UDP on >> port 5030: > > Updated. > >> >> >> It would help readability if the columns in the DNS records in the example >> could be lined up; something like (apologies if your mail reader changes the >> column alignments and if I don't have the quoting right): >> >> _turnserver._udp.local. >> PTR "exampleco TURN Server"._turn._udp.local. >> >> "exampleco TURN Server"._turn._udp.local. >> SRV 0 0 5030 example-turn-server.local. >> >> example-turn-server.local. >> A 198.51.100.2 >> >> example-turn-server.local. >> AAAA 2001:db8:8:4::2 >> >> Similarly, it would help readability if the list of DNS records for S-NAPTR >> resolution were formatted in aligned columns. > > Fixed. > >> >> In section 3, does "on top of" mean "in addition to" or "instead of"? > > It means "in addition to". > > -Tiru
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
