[apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-12
Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it> Sun, 11 March 2012 10:05 UTC
Return-Path: <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6589621F866D for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.192, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MkhCe5BkZZjB for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cyrus.dir.garr.it (cyrus.dir.garr.it [IPv6:2001:760:0:158::29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CF9721F8667 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Mar 2012 03:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it (mac-allocchio3.garrtest.units.it [140.105.201.3] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by cyrus.dir.garr.it (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q2BA4mU0078979 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:04:49 +0100 (CET)
X-DomainKeys: Sendmail DomainKeys Filter v1.0.2 cyrus.dir.garr.it q2BA4mU0078979
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=mail; d=garr.it; c=simple; q=dns; b=iY6/492PLoOtCGZwx92o0J+pQMSaYzcS5I8Me2CBc2wvDSfpWNyWXOGtz9qdzGQKC xiM/i+G5yBl3U159z8a2twiecNITA4T8dT/clneuoteFYx5QpGIvVEW4lNbjFfcwkgq d9spFpfnYfh253S8t0nSoXOj+IMtE/AzYU6WepU=
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 11:04:48 +0100
From: Claudio Allocchio <Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it>
X-X-Sender: claudio@mac-allocchio3.local
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.02.1203091404140.7425@mac-allocchio3.elettra.trieste.it>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (OSX 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-12
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 10:05:28 -0000
I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for this draft (for background on appsdir, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate). Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you may receive. Please wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. Document: draft-ietf-mediactrl-mrb-12 Title: Media Resource Brokering Reviewer: Claudio Allocchio, GARR Review Date: March 11th 2012 IETF Last Call Date: n/a (if there was and I miss it, then CC IESG list!) IESG Telechat Date: n/a Summary: This document is well detailed, and is almaost ready for publication as a Proposed Standard. However there are some general considerations to deal with, and some small additions before this can be done. See below for details. In general, this document is a complex collection of tutorial like (architecture description) sections, general dicussions sections, and detailed element definition and examples. For sure the letter "S" (simple) does not belong to it :-) I guess the WG already discussed about the chance of splitting at lest the tutorial and specification sections, and it pro and cons in doing this. If not, then have at least some thoughts. Major Issues: The only major issue I identified is about the use of security features while communicating between the various elements defined in the architecture: for example when in 12. Security Consideration it states "In the case of the HTTP use, any binding using the Consumer interface MUST be capable of being transacted over TLS" it only states the capability MUST be there (the same for SIP etc.) but it does not make it compulsory (ok, I agree it can be too strong) nor it gives guidance or suggestions on why the capability SHOLD be used. Given we are dealing with locating Media Contents, breaking into the communication among elements can give very precious information for looking to illegally getting media contents. At least a guidance, and description of the problem should be added and will fix my concern. Minor Issues: In section 5.2 you should maybe add a small discussion about differences using HTTP and SIP as Consumer interface (pro and cons). Having Examples as a (long) Section 9 seems to break away the Security and IANA consdierations from the rest of the document body. Have you considered moving the examples below after Security and IANA Considertations? Or as an Appendix? (maybe the above should be considered an editorial Nit!). Nits: where is NS0tecnologies located ? there is no street address. (authors' addresses). Best Regards! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Claudio Allocchio G A R R Claudio.Allocchio@garr.it Senior Technical Officer tel: +39 040 3758523 Italian Academic and G=Claudio; S=Allocchio; fax: +39 040 3758565 Research Network P=garr; A=garr; C=it; PGP Key: http://www.cert.garr.it/PGP/keys.php3#ca
- [apps-discuss] APPSDIR review of draft-ietf-media… Claudio Allocchio