On Fri, 25 Nov 2016 15:30:30 -0500 Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> 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 wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > Hi Russ, thanks for this new review! > Document: draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15 > Reviewer: Russ Housley > Review Date: 2016-11-25 > IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-10 > IESG Telechat date: 2016-12-01 > > Summary: Almost Ready > > > Major Concerns > > I wonder if this ought to be a standards-track document. > I recognize that the STRAW WG charter calls for a standards-track > document, but it only contains a handfull of MUST statements that are > not repeats from another RFC. Maybe this document should become a > Best Current Practice (BCP) instead of a standards-track document. > We actually discussed this in your previous review as well. I can't find the final points or decision on this in that discussion, but I explained there how the WG came to the conclusion it was ok for this to be standards track. You can find the related WG discussion here: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/straw/current/msg00579.html which lead to no objection to keep the document's scope as it is. Not sure how we should proceed on this at this point: I still believe a standards-track document is more appropriate. > > Minor Concerns > > In Section 3.1, it says: > > ... However, certain SDP attributes may > lead to call failures when forwarded by a media relay. Such > attributes SHOULD NOT be forwarded. One notable example is the > 'rtcp' [RFC3605] attribute, that UAC may make use of to explicitly > state the port they're willing to use for RTCP. ... > > This SHOULD NOT statement is vague. One example of an attribute that > should not be forwarded is given, and the previous sentence provides > some specific attributes that should be forwarded. While I see why it > is difficult to not be vague, some better advice to the implementer > could be very helpful > This point was also addressed in your original review, and I tried to fix it and make it clearer with this text change here: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-straw-b2bua-rtcp-15.txt Do you believe it's still ambiguous as it is? Do you have any suggestion on how to improve the text and fix this? Maybe mentioning a couple of attributes we talk about subsequently with something like "Other examples are attributes like X and Y, for reasons that will become clearer in latter sections"? Thanks! Lorenzo _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
