Hi Russ, please see inline:

Thanks!

Ben.

On 25 Nov 2016, at 14:30, Russ Housley 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>.

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.

You may recall you and I had a private email discussion back in October, after your LC review concerning the PS status. We discussed that the working group had also informational or BCP, but decided to stick with PS. (This came up in my AD evaluation as well.) Unless you strongly object, I am inclined to let them stick with PS.



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

While the authors attempted to clarify this, the current draft still got similar comments from Alissa and Alia in the IESG review. They've both proposed clarifying text--hopefully the combination will fix this.

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art

Reply via email to