[art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16
Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com> Mon, 02 April 2018 22:59 UTC
Return-Path: <stpeter@mozilla.com>
X-Original-To: art@ietf.org
Delivered-To: art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35FF11252BA; Mon, 2 Apr 2018 15:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>
To: art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-tram-stunbis.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, tram@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.77.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <152270998513.17947.16209089088681034529@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 15:59:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/art/b_9yQYGk0rTwzmqIpnw0Q_jvL_k>
Subject: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tram-stunbis-16
X-BeenThere: art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
List-Id: Applications and Real-Time Area Discussion <art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/art/>
List-Post: <mailto:art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art>, <mailto:art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2018 22:59:45 -0000
Reviewer: Peter Saint-Andre Review result: Ready with Nits Section 1 states: Implementations and deployments of a STUN usage using TLS or DTLS should follow the recommendations in [RFC7525]. Wouldn't the security considerations be a better location for that text? And given that this specification cites RFC 8174, I suggest changing "should" to "SHOULD". (I suggest that the authors review the usage of lowercase and uppercase requirements keywords, because there might be inconsistencies, e.g., in the first paragraphs of Section 6.1 and Section 6.2.) In Section 4, please consider spelling out "SIP" on first use and including a reference to RFC 3261. The first paragaraph of Section 6.2.3 restates recommendations from RFC 7525; why not simply reference that specification? Section 6.3.4 states: o If the error code is 500 through 599, the client MAY resend the request; clients that do so MUST limit the number of times they do this. It is reasonable to provide guidance as to the number of re-sends? Section 9.1.1 and other sections invoke the OpaqueString profile of the PRECIS FreeformClass; it might be helpful to mention that the profile is used to handle Unicode characters outside the ASCII range, and that no changes result if only ASCII characters are used. In Section 14.2, please consider spelling out "ALG" on first use. A reference to RFC 6151 seems appropriate regarding the fact that this specification retains the use of MD5; in particular, the usage here is actually HMAC-MD5, which is still sanctioned by RFC 6151.
- [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tram-s… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tr… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tr… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tr… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tr… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tr… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tr… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tr… Julien ÉLIE
- Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tr… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [art] [tram] Artart telechat review of draft-… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [art] [tram] Artart telechat review of draft-… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [art] Artart telechat review of draft-ietf-tr… Peter Saint-Andre
- Re: [art] [tram] Artart telechat review of draft-… Marc Petit-Huguenin